<f 


EX  LIBRI£ 


l'i;i:ni IRTCB  '  IROSBT?  U:i: 


THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 


THE  TREATMENT   OF   THE 

REMAINS  AT  THE  EUCHARIST 

AFTER  HOLY  COMMUNION 

AND  THE  TIME  OF  THE 

ABLUTIONS 


CAMBRIDGE  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

C.  F.  CLAY,  Manager 

LONDON  :  FETTER  LANE,  E.C  4 


NEW  YORK  :  THE  MACMILLAN  CO. 
BOM RAY      1 

CALCUTTA  J-  MACMILLAN  AND  CO.,  Ltd. 
MADRAS      J 

TORONTO  :  THE  MACMILLAN    CO. 
OFCANADA,  Ltd. 

TOKYO  :  MARUZEN-KABUSHIKI-KAISHA 

ALL   RIGHTS   RESERVED 


THE  TREATMENT   OF    THE 

REMAINS  AT  THE  EUCHARIST 

AFTER  HOLY  COMMUNION 

AND  THE  TIME  OF    THE 

ABLUTIONS 


BY 

W.  LOCKTON 

VICE-PRINCIPAL  OF 
WINCHESTER  DIOCESAN  TRAINING  COLLEGE 


CAMBRIDGE 

AT  THE  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

1920 


PREFACE 

THE  suggestion  that  it  might  be  useful  if  he  were  to 
compile  such  a  work  as  this  came  to  the  writer  from 
a  friend,  and,  it  may  be  well  to  explain,  his  own  inclina- 
tions would  have  led  him  rather  to  other  fields  of  research. 
Whatever  its  value  the  book  is  the  result  of  an  attempt  to 
carry  out  two  requests.  The  first  was  that  the  question  of 
the  proper  time  for  the  consumption  of  the  remains  at 
the  eucharist,  and  any  ablutions  in  connection  with  the 
English  rite,  should  be  investigated  from  a  historical 
point  of  view.  The  original  essay  dealing  with  the  matter 
appeared  in  the  Church  Quarterly  Review  for  April,  1917. 
On  its  publication  there  was  a  further  request  from 
various  quarters  that  the  material  collected  with  any 
suitable  additions  should  be  preserved  in  a  more  per- 
manent and  accessible  form.  The  present  book  in  which 
the  earlier  essay  is  very  much  enlarged  and  modified  is 
the  response  to  this  second  request.  In  the  course  of  the 
investigation  it  was  found  impossible  to  treat  the  original 
question  at  all  adequately  by  itself,  and  a  number  of 
kindred  subjects  had  almost  of  necessity  to  be  examined 
and  discussed  at  the  same  time;  but  still  the  work  is  not 
intended  to  be  a  treatise  on  reservation,  and  so  there  is 
no  discussion  of  many  questions,  such  as  the  incident  of 
Gorgonia.  It  is  not  claimed  that  the  subject  has  been 
treated  as  exhaustively  as  might  be  possible  by  one  who 
had  unlimited  time  at  his  disposal,  and  it  is  probable 
that  very  much  other  evidence  exists,  and  might  be 
brought  to  light  by  lengthy  research  in  the  great 
libraries,  but  it  is  hoped  that  sufficient  examples  have 
been  given  from  the  more  accessible  sources  to  show 
the  correct  development  of  practice  with  regard  to  the 
different  matters  treated,  and  in  all  probability  further 
research  would  make  really  but  very  little  difference  to 


1291, 


vi  PREFACE 

the  final  conclusions.  The  writer  has  laboured  under  the 
disadvantage  of  doing  his  work  amid  the  stress  of  other 
quite  different  tasks,  and  for  the  most  part  away  from 
any  important  library,  and  even,  as  a  consequence  of  the 
war,  away  from  the  majority  of  his  own  books. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  how  the  examination  of  even 
such  small  liturgical  points  as  the  disposal  of  the  remains 
of  the  consecrated  elements  after  the  communion  and  the 
ablutions  serves  to  bring  out  the  connection  and  depend- 
ence of  the  various  documents  considered,  and  so  may  be 
not  without  value  for  the  more  general  history  of  liturgical 
development.  The  writer  has  endeavoured  to  let  the 
authorities  give  their  evidence  in  their  own  words,  and 
for  this  reason,  although  for  the  purposes  of  the  book 
translations  were  inevitable,  they  have  been  made  as 
literal  as  possible.  Anyone  wishing  to  study  the  original 
documents  will  find  in  every  case  an  adequate  reference. 
An  apology  may  perhaps  seem  to  be  needed  for  what  may 
appear  to  be  unnecessary  repetition  of  the  same  or  similar 
texts,  but  any  attempt  at  tracing  the  growth  and  elabora- 
tion of  a  ceremony  would  have  been  impossible  otherwise. 
Experience  also  has  proved  to  the  writer  that  few  people 
will  ever  take  the  trouble  to  look  up  the  references  given, 
even  when  only  to  other  parts  of  the  same  work,  and  that 
if  an  argument  depends  upon  a  document  quoted  only  on 
another  page  the  evidence  is  too  often  entirely  overlooked, 
and  even  declared  to  be  non-existent. 

The  author  wishes  to  thank  a  great  number  of  friends, 
so  many  that  it  would  be  impossible  to  draw  up  a  com- 
plete list,  for  kind  assistance  on  special  points,  without 
which  he  would  have  been  unable  to  write  the  essay  at 
all,  and  particularly  to  the  editor  of  The  Church  Quarterly 
Review  for  his  courtesy  in  allowing  portions  of  the  original 
article  to  be  reprinted. 

W.  L. 

Winchester, 

7  March,  1920. 


CONTENTS 


CHAP. 

I.  Early  Evidence        .... 

II.  In  the  East 

III.  In  the  West 

IV.  The  Sancta 

V.    The  Portion  of  the  Host  left  on  the 
Altar      

VI.    On  Maundy  Thursday 

VII.  .In  Later  Days  in  the  West     . 

VIII.    The  Development  of  the  Ablutions 

IX.    The  Ablutions  in  Britain 

X.    The  Order  of  Communion  and  the  First 
Prayer  Book         .... 

XI.    The  Second  Prayer  Book  and  the  Eliza 
bethan  Settlement 

XII.    The    Scottish    Prayer   Book   and   the 
Prayer  Book  of  1661    . 

XIII.  The  Worship  of  the  Lamb 

XIV.  Conclusions 

Appendix.    Reservation    and    the    Book    of 
Common  Prayer     .... 

Index       


PAGE 

I 

35 
45 

63 

75 
98 

118 

149 

171 

183 

203 

217 
238 

248 
273 


CHAPTER  I 
EARLY  EVIDENCE 

ANY  practice  which  has  for  its  object  increased  rever- 
A  ence  towards  the  holy  sacrament  of  our  Lord's  body 
and  blood  is  worthy  of  the  careful  consideration  of  all 
faithful  Christians.   We  remember  St  Paul's  words: 

Whosoever  shall  eat  the  bread  or  drink  the  cup  of  the  Lord 
unworthily,  shall  be  guilty  of  the  body  and  the  blood  of  the 
Lord.... For  he  that  eateth  and  drinketh,  eateth  and  drinketh 
judgement  unto  himself,  if  he  discern  not  the  body1. 

Though  in  a  different  degree,  all  unworthy  treatment  of 
the  consecrated  elements  and  failure  to  "discern  the 
Lord's  body  "  must  likewise  be  deserving  of  condemnation. 
It  was  to  avoid  any  possibility  of  such  dishonour  that  in 
the  course  of  time  various  rules  arose  in  different  parts  of 
the  church  for  the  disposal  of  the  remains  of  the  conse- 
crated species  when  the  communion  was  ended.  It  may 
therefore  be  of  value  to  examine  the  evidence  about  the 
primitive  and  later  customs  in  the  matter,  and  then  to 
investigate  the  history  of  the  present  rubrics  of  the  Book 
of  Common  Prayer  dealing  with  the  subject,  so  that  we 
may  the  better  understand  their  exact  significance. 

In  his  First  Apology,  addressed  to  the  emperor  Antoninus 
Pius,  describing  the  eucharist,  as  celebrated  perhaps  at 
Ephesus,  Justin  Martyr  (f  c.  167)  writes: 

And  after  the  president  has  given  thanks,  and  all  the 
people  have  responded,  those  called  deacons  among  us  distri- 
bute to  each  of  those  present  of  the  bread  and  wine  and  water 
over  which  thanks  have  been  given,  and  carry  some  away  to 
those  who  are  absent2. 

1  1  Cor.  xi.  27,  29.  2  Apol.  1.  lxv.  5,  Migne,  P.O.  vi.  col.  428. 

l.e.  1 


2  EARLY  EVIDENCE  [ch. 

Later  we  read  : 

And  there  follows  the  distribution  to  each,  and  the  partak- 
ing of  those  things  over  which  thanks  have  been  given ;  and  to 
those  who  are  not  present  they  are  sent  by  the  deacons1. 

Whether  the  deacons  left  the  church  immediately  after 
the  communion  of  the  people  before  such  final  prayers  as 
there  may  have  been,  or  waited  until  the  sendee  was 
completely  over,  there  is  nothing  to  show,  and  probably 
the  difference  would  not  have  been  great,  for  the  com- 
munion is  the  natural  climax  of  the  service,  and  Justin 
thought  no  further  prayers  worthy  of  mention.  Nor  are 
we  told  anything  about  what  happened  to  the  remnants 
not  needed  for  the  communion  either  in  church  or  at  home. 
That  there  was  at  this  period  a  worthy  method  of  dis- 
posing of  any  surplus  of  the  consecrated  elements,  which 
would  be  followed  by  a  reverent  washing  of  the  sacred 
vessels,  seems  certain  in  view  of  the  statements  of 
Tertullian  and  others  about  the  great  care  with  which  the 
sacrament  must  be  handled. 

Tertullian  says: 

We  suffer  anxiety  if  anything  of  the  cup,  or  even  of  our 
bread  fall  to  the  ground 2. 

The  so-called  Egyptian  Church  Order,  now  generally 
recognised  as  the  work  of  Hippolytus  (f  235),  requires  a 
person  who  reserves  the  eucharist  at  home  to  take  great 
precautions,  and  likewise  the  priest  during  the  liturgy. 
We  read : 

But  let  everyone  take  heed  that  no  unbeliever  partake  of 
the  eucharist,  nor  any  mouse  or  other  animal,  and  that  nothing 
of  it  fall,  or  be  lost,  for  the  body  of  Christ  is  to  be  eaten  by  the 
faithful  and  not  despised.  For  blessing  it  indeed  in  the  name 
of  God  thou  hast  taken  the  chalice  as  the  antitype  of  the  blood 
of  Christ.   Wherefore  be  careful  not  to  spill  it,  lest  a  strange 

1  Apol.  1.  lxvii.  5,  P.G.  vi.  col.  429. 

2  De  Corona,  3,  Migne,  P.L.  11.  col.  80. 


i]  EARLY  EVIDENCE  3 

spirit  lick  it  up,  as  though  thou  despisest  it :  thou  wilt  be  guilty 
of  the  blood  as  one  who  scorns  the  price  by  which  he  was 
redeemed1. 

This  is  the  order  according  to  the  most  ancient  text,  the 
Latin  version  of  the  Verona  fragments.  There  are  also 
ancient  translations  into  Ethiopic,  Arabic  and  Coptic.  The 
Arabic  and  Coptic  texts  represent  a  later  recension,  which 
according  to  the  Latin  rendering  given  by  Renaudot, 
taken  apparently  from  the  Arabic,  runs: 

Everyone  will  take  the  greatest  heed  that  no  unbeliever  be 
admitted  to  the  communion  of  the  mysteries ;  also  that  no  mouse 
or  other  animal  approach  them,  or  that  nothing  fall,  and  he 
sin,  since  it  is  the  body  of  Christ  and  His  blood.  No  one  of  the 
faithful  therefore  who  communicates  in  the  mysteries  ought 
to  be  negligent  with  regard  to  it,  for  nothing  ought  to  be  spilled 
from  the  chalice  after  it  has  been  blessed  in  the  name  of  the 
Lord,  and  he  has  taken  it,  because  it  is  the  blood  of  Christ. 
Be  most  careful  therefore,  whosoever  thou  mayest  be,  that 
nothing  of  it  be  spilled,  so  that  no  unclean  spirits  pollute  it, 
and  be  not  thou  one  who  despises  the  blood  of  Christ,  and  is 
guilty  as  a  scorner  of  the  blood  by  which  he  was  redeemed2. 

In  the  so-called  Testament  of  our  Lord  (c.  350),  which 
is  based  on  the  Egyptian  Church  Order,  the  reference  to 
the  bread  has  disappeared.   We  read: 

He  who  spilleth  of  the  cup  gathereth  up  judgment  to  himself. 
Similarly  also  he  who  seeth  and  is  silent  and  doth  not  reprove 
him,  whoever  he  may  be3. 

In  the  so-called  Canons  of  Hippolytus  (fourth  to  sixth 
century?)  we  have  in  an  Arabic  translation  a  still  later 
modification    of   the   same   rules,    quite   changing   their 

1  Connolly,  The  so-called  Egyptian  Church  Order,  pp.  190-1.  Hauler, 
Didasc.  Apos.  Fragm.  pp.  n  7-8.  Cf.  Horner,  The  Statutes  of  the  Apostles, 
pp.  180-1,  261,  326-7. 

2  Renaudot,  Lit.  Orient.  Coll.  vol.  1.  pp.  289-90.  Cf.  Horner,  Statutes 
of  the  Apostles,  p.  261. 

3  Cooper  and  Maclean,  The  Testament  of  our  Lord,  p.  128. 

1 — 2 


4  EARLY  EVIDENCE  [ch. 

original  scope,  and  a  text  akin  to  the  Coptic  and  Arabic 
recension,  and  particularly  the  version  given  above,  is 
presumably  the  basis  of  it.  We  note  that  the  reference  to 
private  reservation  has  disappeared.   We  read : 

But  let  the  clergy  take  the  greatest  heed  that  they  invite 
no  one  to  partake  of  the  sacred  mysteries  except  believers 
only.  Let  a  clerk  stand  in  readiness  near  the  altar,  and  when 
the  chalice  is  prepared  let  him  stand  on  guard  so  that  no  fly 
fly  about  over  it,  and  that  nothing  fall  into  it,  for  from  this 
there  may  arise  for  the  priests  the  guilt  of  mortal  sin.  Conse- 
quently let  someone  keep  guard  over  the  holy  place.  But  let 
him  who  distributes  the  mysteries,  and  those  who  receive, 
take  very  great  heed  lest  anything  fall  to  the  ground  so  that 
no  evil  spirit  get  possession  of  it1. 

Similar  directions  abound  in  later  days  in  various  docu- 
ments, and  considerable  evidence  to  the  same  effect  may  be 
drawn  from  the  fathers  early  and  late.  Origen  (f  c.  254)  says : 

You  who  are  accustomed  to  take  part  in  the  divine  mysteries 
know  how  when  you  receive  the  body  of  the  Lord  you  keep  it 
with  all  care  and  reverence  lest  even  a  little  of  it  fall,  that 
nothing  of  the  consecrated  gift  be  lost.  For  you  believe,  and 
rightly  believe,  yourselves  guilty  if  anything  of  it  fall  through 
negligence.  But  if  you  employ,  and  rightly  employ,  such 
great  care  with  respect  to  that  body  which  is  to  be  reserved, 
how  do  you  think  that  it  is  less  awful  to  have  neglected  the 
word  of  God  than  His  body2  ? 

Between  these  words  of  Origen  and  the  directions  of  the 
Egyptian  Church  Order  there  is  a  close  affinity,  and  there 
may  be  even  a  literary  connection,  and  there  is  again 
apparently  a  reference  to  private  reservation. 

St  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  {c.  348)  adopts  a  similar  attitude 
with  regard  to  the  great  care  to  be  exercised  in  handling 
the  sacrament.   In  his  catechical  lectures  he  says: 

1  Canon  xxvm.  §§  206-9.  Connolly,  p.  78.  Achelis,  Die  Canones 
Ilippolyti,  pp.  1 19-21. 

2  In  Exod.  xiii.  3,  P.G.  Ml.  col.  391. 


I]  EARLY  EVIDENCE  5 

Then  after  thou  hast  with  carefulness  hallowed  thine  e}res 
by  the  touch  of  the  holy  body,  partake  thereof,  giving  heed 
lest  thou  lose  any  of  it :  for  what  thou  losest  is  a  loss  to  thee  as 
it  were  from  one  of  thine  own  members.  For  tell  me,  if  anyone 
gave  thee  gold  dust,  wouldest  thou  not  with  all  precaution 
keep  it  fast?  How  much  more  cautiously  then  wilt  thou  ob- 
serve that  not  a  crumb  falls  from  thee  of  what  is  more  precious 
than  gold  and  precious  stones1  ? 

A  sermon,  formerly  attributed  to  St  Augustine,  but 
belonging  more  probably  to  St  Caesarius  of  Aries  (f  542), 
also  bears  witness  to  the  great  care  shown  by  Christians 
lest  any  of  the  sacrament  should  fall  to  the  ground.  Like 
Origen  the  writer  argues  from  it  that  the  word  of  God 
ought  to  be  treated  with  not  less  respect.   We  read: 

I  ask  you,  brethren  and  sisters,  tell  me,  what  seems  to  you 
to  be  of  more  value  the  word  of  God  or  the  body  of  Christ? 
If  you  wish  to  answer  truly  you  ought  surely  to  say  this,  that 
the  word  of  God  is  of  no  less  value  than  the  body  of  Christ. 
And  so  however  great  care  we  observe  when  the  body  of  Christ 
is  ministered  to  us  that  nothing  of  it  fall  from  our  hands  to  the 
ground,  let  us  observe  the  same  care  lest  the  word  of  God  which 
is  administered  to  us  be  lost  from  our  hearts  while  we  are 
thinking  or  speaking  of  something  else.  For  a  man  will  be  none 
the  less  guilty  who  hears  the  word  of  God  carelessly  than  he 
who  has  allowed  the  body  of  Christ  to  fall  to  the  ground  by  his 
negligence2. 

The  same  opinion  we  see  about  the  scrupulous  care 
exercised  by  the  faithful  lest  even  a  small  portion  of  the 
sacrament  be  lost  is  expressed  in  many  writings  differing 
very  widely  in  date  and  place.  Yet  unless  there  was  some 
seemly  method  of  disposing  of  the  remains  after  com- 
munion, including  a  reverent  cleansing  of  the  chalice  and 

1  Caiech.  xxm.  Mystag.  v.  21,  P.G.  xxxiii.  col.  1125  (Church's 
translation,  Library  of  the  Fathers,  p.  279). 

2  Augustine,  Sermones,  App.  Sermo  ccc,  otherwise  L.  Homil.  Horn.  26, 
P.L.  xxxix.  col.  2319. 


6  EARLY  EVIDENCE  [ch. 

paten,  such  acts  of  profanity  must  have  been  of  regular 
occurrence :  this  in  view  of  the  strongly  expressed  opinions 
of  so  many  writers  about  the  general  attitude  we  can 
hardly  conceive  to  be  possible. 

Origen  is  witness  to  a  custom,  founded  apparently  on 
the  rules  of  the  Mosaic  law,  by  which  what  was  left  over 
of  the  eucharist  was  kept  until  the  morrow,  but  no  portion 
of  the  remains  reserved  until  the  third  day,  the  Christian 
practice  thus  agreeing  exactly  with  that  of  the  Jews  with 
regard  to  the  consumption  of  certain  of  the  sacrifices.  On 
such  precedents,  as  we  shall  see,  all  later  rules  for  the 
disposal  of  the  remnants  of  the  sacrament  after  com- 
munion are  ultimately  based.   We  read : 

For  the  Lord  when  He  gave  the  bread  to  His  disciples  saying, 
Take  and  eat,  did  not  defer  it,  nor  command  it  to  be  kept  until 
the  morrow.  The  same  significance  perhaps  is  to  be  found  also 
in  the  fact  that  it  (Leviticus)  does  not  command  the  bread  to 
be  carried  on  a  journey,  that  you  may  always  bear  the  bread 
of  the  word  of  God,  which  you  carry  within  you,  fresh....  Another 
figure  of  the  sacraments  indeed  there  is  where  it  commands 
also  what  is  left  over  to  another  day  to  be  eaten,  and  nothing 
indeed  to  be  reserved  till  the  third  day1. 

Origen  is  drawing  out  a  mystical  lesson  from  our  Lord's 
words  as  well  as  from  Leviticus,  and  he  cannot  be  taken 
as  disapproving  of  reservation  in  itself,  and  the  practice 
must  have  been  quite  common  in  his  day  and  before,  as  is 
implied  indeed  in  the  other  words  of  his  quoted  above, 
and  as  we  see  in  the  works  of  other  writers,  as  Tertullian 
and  Cyprian.  Private  reservation  is  also  clearly  referred 
to  as  the  ordinary  custom  in  the  extract  from  the  Egyptian 
Church  Order.  The  words  of  Cyril  of  Alexandria  (|  444)  to 
Calosyrius  at  a  later  date  undoubtedly  represent  the 
traditional  view  of  the  church  on  the  permanent  effects 
of  consecration.   We  read: 

1  Horn.  V  in  Levit.  8,  P.G.  XXI.  col.  459. 


i]  EARLY  EVIDENCE  7 

And  I  hear  that  they  say  that  the  mystical  benediction 
avails  nothing  for  sanctification  if  any  of  it  be  left  until 
another  day.  But  they  are  mad  who  say  such  things,  for 
neither  is  Christ  other  than  Himself,  nor  His  holy  body  changed, 
but  the  power  and  vivifying  grace  of  the  benediction  abide 
perpetually  in  it1. 

In  the  so-called  liturgy  of  St  Clement,  found  in  the 
eighth  book  of  the  Apostolic  Constitutions,  we  are  told 
for  the  first  time  what  actually  happens  to  the  remains  in 
the  service  after  the  communion.   We  read: 

And  when  all  have  received,  both  men  and  women,  let  the 
deacons  take  what  remains  over  and  carry  it  into  the  sacristy 
(pastophorium)2. 

This  takes  place  immediately  after  the  communion  and 
before  the  last  prayers.  Unfortunately  nothing  is  said 
about  their  final  disposal,  whether  they  are  reserved  in  the 
sacristy  till  the  morrow,  or  for  a  longer  period  as  in  later 
days,  or  consumed  there  immediately,  for  which  also  there 
is  considerable  evidence  at  a  later  period.  Reservation 
until  the  next  day  only  would  seem  to  be  the  more  usual 
custom  at  this  date. 

The  practice  of  reserving  the  sacrament  in  the  sacristy 
is  referred  to  in  what  appears  to  be  in  origin  a  marginal 
note  which  has  been  interpolated  in  some  texts  of  Jerome's 
Commentary  on  Ezekiel  xl.   We  read: 

Wherefore  the  sacristy  in  which  lies  the  body  of  Christ  Who 
is  the  true  Bridegroom  of  the  church  and  of  our  souls  is  rightly 
called  the  bridal  chamber  or  pastophorium?. 

In  the  Sahidic  Ecclesiastical  Canons  (cap.  lxiii-lxxix) 
we  have  in  a  shortened  form  and  somewhat  modified  in 
places  the  directions,  but  not  the  prayers,  of  the  eighth 
book  of  the  Apostolic  Constitutions.    Here  what  is  left 

1  Adv.  Anthropomorph.  i,  P.G.  lxxvi.  col.  1073-6. 

2  Brightman,  Eastern  Liturgies,  p.  25. 

3  In  Ezek.  xl.    See  Freestone,  Sacrament  Reserved,  p.  no. 


8  EARLY  EVIDENCE  [ch. 

over  from  the  communion  remains  on  the  holy  table 
apparently  until  after  the  blessing  and  dismissal,  when  we 
find  rules  for  its  disposal.   We  read : 

Whatsoever  remains  over  let  the  presbyters  and  the  deacons 
gather  up,  taking  careful  heed  that  there  be  not  much  over 
that  so  there  be  not  exceeding  great  judgment  upon  them  like 
the  sons  of  Aaron  and  the  sons  of  Eli  whom  the  Holy  Ghost 
smote  because  they  refrained  not  from  setting  at  nought  the 
Lord's  sacrifice:  how  much  more  them  that  shall  think  scorn 
of  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord,  deeming  that  it  is  only 
bodily  food  that  they  receive  not  spiritual1. 

In  an  ancient  Coptic  collection  of  constitutions  of  uncer- 
tain date  we  read: 

If  it  happens  on  the  day  of  some  solemn  feast  that  any  of  the 
eucharist  remains  over,  it  should  be  treated  with  honour: 
and  the  following  day  the  priests  should  divide  it  among  them- 
selves and  communicate  therefrom.  If  no  one  is  found  who 
can  consume  it,  it  should  be  reverently  buried  somewhere, 
but  not  burnt ;  for  the  honour  due  to  the  holy  bodies  does  not 
allow  them  to  burn  them :  but  they  bury  them2. 

In  the  nineteenth  of  a  set  of  Arabic  canons  ascribed  to 
the  council  of  Nicaea,  and  widely  accepted  by  about  the 
seventh  century,  we  find  directions  for  the  disposal  of  the 
remnants  of  the  eucharist.   We  read: 

As  often  as  commemorations  are  made  in  churches  and 
monasteries,  or  at  the  tombs  of  the  martyrs,  and  any  of  the 
eucharist  is  left  over,  let  the  priests  honour  it  in  the  morning 
of  the  following  day  before  they  communicate.  But  if  what  is 
left  over  is  much  let  them  divide  it  among  themselves  and  each 
take  his  portion,  but  only  once  by  way  of  a  single  morsel  whether 
small  or  great,  and  let  it  not  be  done  a  second  or  third  time3. 

1  Brightman,  p.  463. 

2  PerpStuitd  de  la  Foi,  1841,  in.  7,  vol.  III.  col.  212. 

3  Hardouin,  Concil.  Collectio,  vol.  1.  col.  506. 


i]  EARLY  EVIDENCE  9 

Hesychius  (f  c.  438)  in  his  commentary  on  Leviticus 
compares  the  Jewish  and  Christian  practice  with  regard 
to  the  remains  of  the  sacrifices.   He  says: 

The  body  of  Christ  the  living  Bread  which  came  down  from 
heaven... ought  to  be  baked  and  eaten  within  the  church  in 
the  holy  place,  that  is,  at  the  altar,  and  never  elsewhere. 
Wherefore  Paul  commanded  the  Corinthians,  When  ye  come 
together... or  despise  ye  the  church  of  God  and  shame  them 
that  have  not  (1  Cor.  xi.  20-22).  And  this  is  so  because  there 
entirely  the  mystic  supper  ought  to  be  celebrated.... But  that 
which  was  left  of  the  flesh  and  the  bread  he  commanded  to 
be  burned  in  the  fire.  And  this  also  we  now  see  done  before 
our  eyes  in  the  church,  and  whatever  happens  to  remain 
unconsumed  is  committed  to  the  fire:  not  simply  that  which 
has  been  kept  one  or  two  or  many  days,  for  as  it  appears  it 
was  not  this  that  the  lawgiver  commanded,  but  that  which  was 
left  he  ordered  to  be  burned1. 

Evagrius  in  his  Ecclesiastical  History  (c.  594)  gives  the 
usage  at  Constantinople  in  his  day,  and  before.   We  read : 

It  is  considered  an  ancient  custom  in  the  imperial  city  that 
whenever  a  large  quantity  of  the  sacred  pieces  of  the  spotless 
body  of  Christ  our  God  remained  over  uncorrupted  boys  of 
those  who  attend  the  school  of  grammar  should  be  summoned 
to  eat  them2. 

The  same  practice  apparently  obtained  also  in  Gaul  at 
about  the  same  date.  In  the  sixth  canon  of  the  second 
council  of  Macon  in  585  we  read: 

Whatever  remnants  of  the  sacrifices  are  left  over  in  the 
sacristy  after  the  completion  of  mass  on  Wednesday  and  Friday, 
let  innocent  boys  be  brought  to  church  by  him  whose  business 
it  is,  and  a  fast  having  been  imposed  upon  them,  let  them  receive 
the  same  remnants  sprinkled  with  wine3. 

1  In  Lev.  11,  P.G.  xcni.  col.  886-7. 

2  Hist.  Eccles.  iv.  36,  P.G.  lxxxvi.  col.  2769. 

3  Hardouin,  vol.  in.  col.  462. 


io  EARLY  EVIDENCE  [ch. 

The  mention  of  the  fast  seems  to  preclude  the  possibility 
that  only  unconsecrated  hosts  are  intended  as  in  later 
days.  The  phraseology  also  is  identical  with  that  used  with 
reference  to  the  disposal  of  the  remnants  of  the  sacrament 
in  the  East. 

At  a  synod  held  at  Constantinople  under  the  patriarch 
Nicholas  Grammaticus  in  the  days  of  the  emperor  Alexius 
Comnenus  I  (c.  1085)  one  of  the  questions  brought  forward 
for  decision  by  certain  monks  had  to  do  with  the  disposal 
of  the  remains  at  the  eucharist.  Though  late  it  will  be 
convenient  to  give  the  answer  here.  According  to  Theodore 
Balsamon  the  twelfth  century  canonist,  we  read : 

Question  5.  Ought  the  priest  to  eat  the  things  which  are 
offered  in  the  church,  as  the  oblations  and  liquids,  indiscrimi- 
nately and  as  he  wills,  and  ought  he  to  eat  them  as  common 
bread?  And  if  man}'  such  things  have  been  gathered  what 
ought  he  to  do  with  them?  Answer.  The  fragments  of  the 
exalted  (consecrated)  oblation  they  ought  not  to  eat  save  only 
in  the  church,  until  they  have  consumed  everything,  and  the 
remnants  of  the  others  not  with  milk,  or  cheese,  or  eggs,  or 
fish,  but  separately  and  by  themselves1. 

The  seventh  canon  of  Theophilus  of  Alexandria  (385- 
412),  sometimes  referred  to  in  this  connection  and  mis- 
understood, may  be  given  for  comparison.   We  read  : 

Let  the  clergy  divide  the  things  which  are  offered  for  the 
purpose  of  the  sacrifice  after  those  needed  for  the  mysteries 
are  consumed,  and  let  not  a  catechumen  eat  or  drink  of  them, 
but  only  the  clergy  and  the  faithful  brethren  who  are  with 
them.  For  since  they  were  brought  to  the  altar,  and  of  them 
parts  were  taken  for  the  divine  gifts,  and  those  were  hallowed, 
how  shall  any  of  them  be  given  to  the  uninitiated  to  con- 
sume 2? 

1  Balsamon,  Interpretationes  Canonicae,  P.G.  cxxxvm.  col.  944. 

2  Balsamon,  Theoph.  Alex.  Quaes.,  P.G.  lxv.  col.  41. 


I]  EARLY  EVIDENCE  II 

The  custom  prescribed  by  the  decree  is  similar  to  that 
mentioned  by  the  pseudo  Jerome,  whose  words  also  are 
frequently  misinterpreted.   He  says: 

And  after  the  communion  whatever  remained  over  from  the 
sacrifices  eating  there  in  church  a  meal  in  common  they  con- 
sumed them  in  like  manner1. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  reference  in  both  cases 
is  to  the  portion  of  the  people's  offerings  or  sacrifices  not 
needed  for  the  mysteries,  that  is,  what  was  not  required 
for  the  consecration,  not  what  was  left  over  from  the 
communion,  and  the  practice  is  well  attested  otherwise, 
but  both  the  extracts,  and  particularly  the  former,  have 
been  interpreted  differently,  and  as  we  shall  see  by  English 
divines2,  of  the  remains  of  the  consecrated  elements,  a 
natural  misunderstanding  perhaps  when  the  offering  of 
the  people  was  obsolete.  Balsamon  is  quite  clear  about 
the  exact  meaning  of  each  of  the  texts  he  gives.  He  says: 

The  Canon  gave  no  orders  at  all  with  regard  to  the  fragments 
left  over  of  the  holy  consecrated  bread  and  the  rest  (i.e.  the 
wine),  and  did  not  prescribe  how  they  should  be  used.  The 
Answer  however  divided  the  consumption  of  the  oblations  into 
two;  yet  about  the  wine  which  was  offered  the  holy  synod 
gave  no  decision;  but  Theophilus  decreed  that  this  also  should 
be  consumed  in  the  same  way  as  the  loaves,  and  rightly  as  I 
think,  for  the  wine  is  not  consecrated  but  only  hallowed3. 

At  this  point  it  will  be  convenient  to  consider  the 
apocryphal  letter  of  Clement  to  James  the  Lord's  brother, 
and  it  will  be  useful  for  our  purpose  to  quote  it  at  some- 
what greater  length  than  is  usually  done.  It  belongs 
apparently  to  the  seventh  century,  and  so  what  is  de- 
scribed represents  the  practice  of  that  date.   We  read : 

The  sacraments  of  the  divine  secrets  were  committed  to  the 
three  grades  of  the  clergy,  to  the  priest,  the  deacon  and  the 

1  In  i  Cor.  xi,  P.L.  xxx.  col.  751. 

2  See  pp.  197,  207,  2ii,  cf.  p.  209.  3  P.G.  cxxxvm.  col.  944. 


12  EARLY  EVIDENCE  [ch. 

minister,  who  with  fear  and  trembling  ought  to  guard  the 
remnants  of  the  fragments  of  the  Lord's  body  that  no  corruption 
be  found  in  the  sacristy,  lest  through  acting  negligently  grave 
injury  be  brought  to  a  portion  of  the  Lord's  body.  But  if  the 
communion  of  the  body  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  carelessly 
distributed  and  the  priest  does  not  trouble  to  admonish  the 
minor  officials,  let  him  be  smitten  with  a  grievous  curse,  and  a 
meet  stroke  of  humiliation.  Let  so  many  hosts  indeed  be  offered 
on  the  altar  as  ought  to  suffice  for  the  people,  but  if  any  remain 
until  the  morrow,  let  them  not  be  reserved1,  but  be  carefully 
consumed  by  the  clerks  with  fear  and  trembling.  But  let  not 
those  who  consume  the  residue  of  the  Lord's  body  which  has 
been  left  in  the  sacristy  come  together  immediately  to  receive 
common  food  lest  they  think  that  the  food  which  is  being 
digested... be  mingled  with  the  holy  portion.  If  therefore  the 
Lord's  portion  be  eaten  in  the  morning  let  the  ministers  who 
consumed  it  fast  until  the  sixth  hour,  and  if  they  received  it 
at  the  third  or  fourth  hour,  let  them  fast  until  the  evening.... 

And  the  palls  and  veils  which  have  been  soiled  in  the  service 
of  the  sanctuary,  let  the  deacon  and  lower  ministers  wash 
near  the  sacristy,  not  casting  the  coverings  of  the  Lord's  table 
out  of  doors  from  the  sacristy,  lest  unhappily  tiny  fragments 
(pulvis)  of  the  Lord's  body  fall  by  chance  from  the  linen  washed 
out  of  doors,  and  it  be  sin  to  him  who  does  it.  Therefore  we 
command  that  these  holy  things  be  kept  with  care  by  the 
ministers  within  the  sacristy.  And  let  a  new  bowl  be  provided 
and  except  for  this  purpose  let  nothing  else  touch  it,  but  let 
not  this  bowl  be  used  for  washing  any  veils  except  those  which 
pertain  to  the  worship  of  the  Lord's  altar.  Let  the  palls  of  the 
altar  alone  be  washed  in  it,  and  the  veils  of  the  doors  in  another. .. 

We  command  also  that  none  of  the  fragments  of  the  Lord's 
oblation  be  set  before  anyone  at  the  table  who  is  excommuni- 
cate from  the  church,  or  a  layman.  How  dost  thou  know 
whether  thou  art  not  bestowing  the  bread  of  the  sacristy  on  the 
unworthy?  How  dost  thou  know  if  those  on  whom  thou  art 
bestowing  it  are  clean  from  women?... Again  and  again  we 
1  "Quod  si  remanserint  in  crastinum  non  reserventur." 


I]  EARLY  EVIDENCE  13 

commend  to  your  charge  the  fragments  of  the  Lord's  body. 
Let  the  chalice  also  be  prepared  for  bearing  the  blood  of  the 
Lord  with  entire  cleanliness  of  service,  and  let  the  minister 
prepare  it  lest,  if  the  chalice  be  not  well  washed,  it  become  sin 
to  the  deacon  who  offers  it.... From  the  beginning  of  the  epistle 
up  to  this  point  I  have  entrusted  the  sacraments  to  your  charge 
to  look  after  them  well  where  no  mouse  dung  may  be  found 
among  the  fragments  of  the  Lord's  portion,  and  that  nothing 
corrupt  remain  through  the  negligence  of  the  clergy,  lest  men 
come  wishing  to  receive  healing  for  themselves,  and,  when  they 
see  what  is  corrupt,  be  seen  to  receive  it  rather  with  ridicule  and 
disgust,  and  through  the  negligence  of  the  clergy  fall  into  sin1. 

We  notice  at  once  the  similarity  between  the  require- 
ments of  the  first  part  of  this  letter  with  regard  to  the 
disposal  of  the  remains  of  the  sacrament,  and  the  directions 
of  the  Egyptian  Church  Order,  and  Origen  and  others. 
It  is  quite  clear  that  the  remains  of  the  sacrament  are  not 
consumed  during  the  service  immediately  after  the  com- 
munion, but  are  carried  into  the  sacristy.  With  regard 
to  their  subsequent  treatment  a  question  of  translation 
makes  a  considerable  difference.  The  usual  translation  in 
later  days,  when  the  document  was  quoted  so  widely  in 
the  West  as  an  authority,  was  "if  any  remain  let  them  not 
be  reserved  until  the  morrow,"  but  this  is  almost  certainly 
incorrect.  These  directions,  like  others  we  have  already 
considered,  are  plainly  based  on  the  rules  of  the  Mosaic 
law  for  the  disposal  of  the  remains  of  sacrifices.  In  the 
Pentateuch  we  find  two  different  rules  for  this  according 
to  the  occasion.  In  one  case  the  remains  maybe  kept  and 
eaten  the  second  day,  but  if  left  until  the  third  day  they 
must  be  burned  (Lev.  vii.  16,  17;  xix.  6);  in  the  other  the 
remains  may  be  eaten  only  on  the  day  of  the  sacrifice,  and 
if  kept  until  the  morrow  they  must  be  burned  (Ex.  xii.  10; 
xxix.  34).    Origen,  as  we  noticed,  compared  both  these 

1  P.G.  1.  col.  483-7. 


14  EARLY  EVIDENCE  [ch. 

requirements  with  usages  prevailing  with  regard  to  the 
eucharist,  and  though  for  the  purpose  of  his  mystical 
interpretation  he  argued  that  it  was  not  by  Christ's 
ordinance  that  it  should  be  kept  until  the  morning,  yet 
he  assumed  that  frequently  it  would  be  so  reserved.  Those 
of  whom  Cyril  of  Alexandria  wrote  to  Calosyrius,  who  did 
not  regard  the  consecration  as  lasting  until  the  next  day, 
were  probably  influenced  by  the  second  of  the  rules  given 
above.  We  note  however  that  both  the  Levitical  regulations 
assume  that  the  remains  will  have  been  kept  at  least  until 
the  morrow  before  it  will  be  necessary  to  dispose  of  them 
by  burning.  It  seems  therefore  almost  impossible  that 
the  letter  of  the  pseudo  Clement  can  mean  anything 
different.  Translating  in  this  way  "if  any  remain  until 
the  morrow"  we  note  that  the  phrase  is  exactly  what  we 
find  in  each  case  where  the  subject  is  mentioned  in  the 
Pentateuch  (Ex.  xii.  10;  xxiii.  18;  xxix.  34;  cf.  Lev.  vii. 
15;  xix.  6;  xxii.  30).  The  various  times  mentioned  for 
consuming  the  remains  of  the  sacrament,  in  the  morning, 
or  at  the  third  or  fourth  hour,  suggest  that  it  does  not 
take  place  immediately  after  the  liturgy,  but  on  a  separate 
occasion,  and  therefore  apparently  on  a  different  day. 
What  is  to  be  consumed  is  that  "which  has  been  left  in 
the  sacristy,"  again  suggesting  a  time  other  than  immedi- 
ately after  the  liturgy,  and  with  this  the  tense  of  the  verb 
agrees,  for  it  is  literally,  "if  any  have  remained."  It 
would  seem  then  that  the  intention  of  the  letter  of  the 
pseudo  Clement  is  that  the  remains  of  the  sacrament 
should  be  kept  until  the  next  day,  and  that  then  they 
must  be  consumed  by  the  clergy  and  not  reserved,  though 
they  are  still  consecrated,  and  must  not  be  confused  with 
the  unconsecrated  oblations,  being  still  "the  communion 
of  the  body  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  This  agrees  exactly 
with  the  Arabic  canons  of  the  council  of  Nicaea:  "As 
often  as. .  .any  of  the  eucharist  is  left  over,  let  the  priests 
honour  it  in  the  morning  of  the   following  day  before 


i]  EARLY  EVIDENCE  15 

they  communicate1."  It  is  also  just  what  we  find  in  the 
ancient  Coptic  rule  quoted  above:  "If  it  happens  on  the 
day  of  some  solemn  feast  that  any  of  the  eucharist  remains 
over,  it  should  be  treated  with  honour:  and  the  following 
day  the  priests  should  divide  it  among  themselves  and 
communicate  therefrom2."  The  practice  to  which  Hesy- 
chius  is  alluding  when  he  speaks  of  burning  the  remains 
of  the  eucharist  which  have  been  kept  "one  or  two  or 
many  days,"  seems  also,  as  he  claims,  connected  with  the 
Levitical  rule,  though  his  argument  that  they  should  be 
burned  immediately  is  scarcely  correct,  for  the  remains 
of  the  sacrifices  were  not  burned  until  the  morrow3.  The 
custom  of  giving  what  was  left  to  boys  also  points  in  the 
same  direction,  lor  certainly  at  the  council  of  Macon,  and 
probably  in  the  East,  the  boys  were  only  fetched  on  certain 
days4.  That  the  remains  of  the  consecrated  breads  should 
be  kept  at  least  until  the  next  morning  seems  to  have 
been  at  one  time  an  almost  universal  custom,  and  there 
can  be  little  doubt  that  the  letter  of  the  pseudo  Clement 
should  be  correctly  translated  as  above — "if  any  remain 
until  the  morrow,  let  them  not  be  reserved." 

We  must  however  notice  one  piece  of  evidence  which 
at  first  sight  appears  to  tell  against  this  interpretation, 
and  it  is  to  be  found  in  one  of  the  Canons  of  Athanasius. 
These  canons  survive  only  in  the  Arabic  and  Coptic,  but 
they  appear  to  belong  to  the  date  of  Athanasius,  and  they 
may  be  due  to  the  saint  himself.   We  read: 

And  concerning  the  holy  mysteries,  the  body  of  Christ  and 
His  blood,  they  shall  not  let  aught  thereof  remain  over  from 
evening  to  the  morning,  but  shall  do  with  it  whatsoever  they 
will.  The  holy  altar  having  been  prepared,  and  so  long  as  the 
holy  mysteries  are  thereon,  ere  he  hath  raised  it  up  the  readers 
shall  not  be  silent  before  it,  but  shall  sing  in  the  word  of  God 
or  shall  repeat  the  psalms. ...And  because  it  is  His  body  and 

1  See  p.  8.  a  See  p.  8. 

3  See  p.  9.  *  See  p.  9. 


16  EARLY  EVIDENCE  [ch. 

blood,  so  shall  they  not  leave  praising  Him,  until  the  time  when 
the  place  is  cleansed1. 

Another  canon  however  seems  to  show  that  the  reference 
is  not  to  the  consecrated  elements  at  all.  We  read  : 

An  offering  that  remaineth  over  from  yesterday  they  shall 
not  offer,  neither  that  which  hath  been  divided  in  pieces  in 
any  church,  but  bread  warm,  fresh  and  whole2. 

From  this  it  seems  clear  that  the  former  canon  has 
nothing  to  do  with  the  remnants  of  the  sacrament,  but 
that  it  refers  to  the  unconsecrated  oblations  of  the  people 
which  must  not  be  used  in  the  eucharist  except  on  the  day 
on  which  they  were  originally  baked  and  offered ;  and  this 
explanation  fits  in  exactly  with  the  purpose  of  the  rest  of 
the  canon.  We  have  therefore  nothing  here  which  testifies 
to  the  existence  of  a  custom  which  would  contradict  our 
interpretation  of  the  passage  in  the  pseudo  Clement,  that 
the  remains  of  the  consecrated  hosts  were  not  as  a  rule 
disposed  of  until  the  next  day. 

Nothing  is  said  about  the  consumption  of  any  remains 
of  the  chalice  in  the  letter  of  the  pseudo  Clement,  or 
whether  the  residue  of  the  consecrated  wine  was  also 
reserved.  We  are  only  told  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the 
minister  to  see  that  the  chalice  is  well  washed.  In  view 
of  the  rubric  in  the  liturgy  of  the  Apostolic  Constitutions, 
and  later  custom  in  the  matter,  at  any  rate  on  occasions, 
both  in  East  and  West,  it  seems  probable  that  this  too 
was  taken  into  the  sacristy,  and  reserved  in  a  similar  way. 
Anything  in  the  nature  of  ablutions,  and  the  necessary 
cleansing  of  the  vessels,  must  thus  have  taken  place  in  the 
sacristy,  and  not  before  the  conclusion  of  the  service. 

At  a  superficial  view  the  letter  of  the  pseudo  Clement, 
though  requiring  reservation  of  the  remains  for  one  day, 
might  seem  to  forbid  it  altogether  for  a  longer  period,  but 

1  Riedel  and  Crum,  The  Canons  of  Athanasius,  pp.  48-9. 
8  Riedel  and  Crum,  p.  42,  cf.  p.  129. 


i]  EARLY  EVIDENCE  ly 

there  appears  to  be  no  evidence  of  the  existence  of  any 
such  custom,  or  that  it  was  ever  so  interpreted.    Some, 
such  as  those  mentioned  by  Cyril  of  Alexandria  in  his 
letter  to  Calosyrius,  appear  to  have  argued  against  reserva- 
tion in  any  form,  but  the  letter  was  never  so  understood, 
and  continuous  reservation  was  the  common  practice  both 
before  and  after  its  appearance.    In  the  rule  for  dealing 
with  "the  remnants  of  the  fragments  of  the  Lord's  body," 
or  "the  residue  of  the  Lord's  body,"  for  the  necessary 
disposal  of  which,  as  remains  of  the  sacrifices,  precedent 
could  be  found  in  the  Mosaic  law,  in  view  of  the  reasons 
put   forward  for  similar  customs  elsewhere,   the  writer 
without  any  doubt  had  in  mind  the  requirements  of  the 
Pentateuch.   With  the  question  of  the  continuous  reserva- 
tion of  that  which  was  wanted  for  its  proper  purpose  he 
is  not  concerned,  and  the  Old  Testament  certainly  failed 
to  supply  any  rule  which  was  applicable.  Yet  the  existence 
of  such  perpetual  reservation  is  evidently  supposed,  for 
the  words  "let  them  not  be  reserved,"  suggest  it,  as  also 
the  fact  that  some  might  come  to  partake  of  the  sacrament 
as  an  act  of  devotion  and  be  scandalized  to  find  it  corrupt. 
The  use  of  the  reserved  species  for  purposes  of  communion 
is  not  condemned  but  rather  the  reverse,  and  the  argu- 
ment is  that  it  is  not  seemly  that  the  faithful  should  have 
to  receive  that  which  had  been  negligently  kept  for  an 
indefinite  period  and  had  become  foul.  To  prevent  all 
abuse  "the  residue"  or  "the  remnants  of  the  fragments  of 
the  Lord's  body"  were  not  to  be  used  for  communion  at 
all,  or  even  given  to  laymen,  but  consumed  by  the  clergy. 
Consequently  separate  provision  would  have  to  be  made 
for  continuous  reservation,  and  so  in  reckoning  the  people 
for  whom  the  hosts  to  be  consecrated  are  to  suffice  account 
would  have  to  be  taken  of  those  who  were  expected  to 
communicate  with  the  reserved  species  and  the  needs  of 
the   sick,   so  that   they  might   be   independent   of   any 
accidental  surplus.  Though  misunderstood  on  one  point, 

L.  E.  2 


18  EARLY  EVIDENCE  [ch.  i. 

some  such  interpretation  as  this,  which  indeed  is  identical 
with  that  given  by  St  Thomas  Aquinas l,  has  always  been 
put  upon  the  directions  of  the  letter,  and  it  has  been 
rightly  regarded  as  condemning,  not  the  seemly  reserva- 
tion of  the  sacrament,  but  the  negligent  treatment  of 
what  was  left  over  from  communion. 

1  Summa,  Pars  in.  Quaes,  lxxxiii.  Art.  v,  P.L.  iv.  (Second  Series), 
col.  848.   See  p.  42. 


CHAPTER  II 
IN  THE  EAST 

WE  have  already  noticed  the  practice  of  burying  the 
remains  of  the  eucharist  among  the  Copts.  It 
seems  to  have  been  not  unknown  elsewhere,  and  to  have 
continued  to  a  much  later  period  in  orthodox  circles. 
Cardinal  Humbert  in  his  controversial  work  against  the 
Greeks,  written  in  1054,  contrasts  what  he  considers  their 
unworthy  methods  of  dealing  with  the  remnants  of  the 
sacrament  with  the  better  custom  said  to  prevail  in  the 
churches  at  Jerusalem.   We  read : 

If  anything  of  the  holy  and  venerable  eucharist  remain  over 
in  the  churches  of  Jerusalem  they  neither  burn  it  nor  put  it 
into  a  pit,  but  store  it  away  in  a  clean  pyx,  and  the  following 
day  communicate  the  people  from  it :  for  they  give  communion 
there  daily  because  there  assemble  thither  Christians  from 
various  provinces,  who  because  of  their  faith  and  exceeding 
great  love  towards  the  Son  of  God  desire  to  communicate 
there,  for  as  much  as  that  place  is  more  venerable  and  sacred 
than  any  place  in  the  whole  world.... But  to  inter  or  bury  the 
holy  eucharist  in  the  earth,  as  some  are  said  to  do,  or  to  put 
it  in  a  pot,  or  to  pour  it  away,  is  gross  negligence  and  not  the 
fear  of  God1. 

We  have  here  evidently  a  reference  to  the  contents  of 
the  chalice  as  well  as  to  the  bread. 

Nothing  is  said  in  any  of  the  texts  of  the  Greek  liturgy 
of  St  James,  which  have  come  down  to  us,  about  the  dis- 
posal of  what  remains  after  the  communion,  or  about  any 
ablutions,  but  we  get  some  information  from  the  Syriac 

1  Adv.  Calumn.  Graec.  33,  P.L.  cxliii.  col.  952. 


V 


20  IN  THE  EAST  [ch. 

form  of  the  rite.  In  an  explanation  of  the  liturgy  drawn 
up  by  Dionysius  Barsalibi,  Bishop  of  Amid,  at  the  end  of 
the  twelfth  century,  but  sometimes  wrongly  ascribed  to 
John  Maro  (f  707)  the  founder  of  the  Maronites,  we  read 
after  the  communion  and  thanksgiving: 

And  immediately  he  commends  them  to  the  divine  grace 
saying,  Go  in  peace.... When  the  priest  is  about  to  say  this 
commendation  he  should  put  his  right  hand  on  the  altar  and 
immediately  turn  round  to  the  people,  and  make  crosses  over 
them  with  it,  and  the}'  should  say  Psalm  xxxiv.,  /  will  always 
give  thanks...  and  afterwards  (to  the  tune)  Voices  of  praise  they 
.sing,  Thy  body  which  I  have  eaten... or  (to  the  tune)  Be  glad  0  ye 

righteous,  Not  to  judgment  or  condemnation And  then  he  seals1 

the  people  saying,  The  blessing  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.... And 
after  he  has  consumed  the  body  and  drunk  the  blood  and 
ministered  (i.e.  performed  the  ablutions),  and  wiped  the  vessels 
he  says,  Because  I  have  eaten  of  thy  body...2. 

In  the  Syriac  liturgy  of  the  Maronites,  who  were 
received  into  communion  with  the  Roman  church  in  1182, 
according  to  the  edition  printed  at  Rome  in  1592,  we  read: 

The  priest  says  the  final  seal  common  to  all  the  anaphoras, 
Bless  us  all.. ..The  priest  says,  Go  in  peace. ...He  drinks  the 
blood  and  says,  By  thy  vivifying  and  living  blood. ...The  deacon 
(says  Psalm  xxxiii),  /  will  always  give  thanks.... And  afterwards 
(to  the  tune)  Voices  of  praise  they  sing,  Praise  the  Lord,  all  ye 
people,  Alleluia,  Thy  body  which  I  have  eaten.... Another  hymn 
(to  the  tune)  Be  glad  0  ye  righteous,  Not  to  judgment  or  con- 
demnation.... Pit  the  end  the  priest  seals  them,  The  blessing  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.... After  the  consumption  of  the  body 
the  priest  ministers  (i.e.  wipes  and  cleanses  the  vessels),  and 
says  this  prayer,  The  oblation  which  we  have  today  offered.... And 
when  he  wipes  the  paten  he  says,  May  the  living  fire  of  thy  precious 
body  and  blood. ...And  when  he  wipes  his  fingers  thrice,  and 

1  I.e.  blesses  with  the  sign  of  the  cross.    So  a  "seal"  is  a  blessing. 

2  Assemani,  Codex  Liturgicus,  vol.  v.  p.  396.  Cf.  Connolly  and 
Codrington   Two  Commentaries  on  the  Jacobite  Liturgy,  p.  69. 


ii]  IN  THE  EAST  21 

first  those  of  his  right  hand,  he  says,  Let  my  fingers  rehearse  thy 
praises. ...At  his  left  hand  he  says,  Guard  me,  0  Lord,  from  all 
harm.. ..And  when  he  drinks  the  wine  which  he  had  mixed  for 
the  ablution  he  says,  They  shall  be  satisfied... (Ps.  xxxvi).  When 
he  wipes  the  chalice  he  says  the  prayer  of  Ephraim,  Wipe  away, 
0  Lord  with  the  sponge  of  thy  mercy.... And  after  the  seal  he 
says,  Because  I  have  eaten  of  thy  holy  body...1. 

In  the  common  order  of  the  Syriac  liturgy  as  used  by 
the  Syrian  Jacobites,  and  similarly  in  the  liturgy  of  the 
Christians  of  St  Thomas  on  the  Malabar  coast,  we  read 
after  the  communion  and  thanksgiving: 

The  seal,  May  God  who  has  granted  «s....The  priest  puts  his 
right  hand  on  the  altar,  and  says  this  prayer  of  commendation, 
signing  the  people  thrice  with  the  sign  of  the  cross,  and  says, 
Go  in  peace.... The  priest  bowing  before  the  table  of  life  says 
within  himself  this  prayer  for  himself  secretly,  By  the  oblation 
which  we  have  today  offered.... After  he  has  finished  all  things 
which  pertain  to  the  ministering  (i.e.  consuming  the  remains) 
of  the  body  of  Christ  he  says,  The  Lord  is  my  shepherd,  and  the 
rest  of  the  psalm  (xxiii).  And  he  wipes  the  paten  and  says, 
If  any  member  remain,  let  it  remain  to  thy  knowledge  which 
created  the  world.  If  any  member  remain,  may  the  Lord  be  its 
keeper,  and  be  merciful  to  us.  And  after  he  has  finished  wiping 
the  chalice  he  says,  What  shall  I  render  unto  the  Lord....Aiter 
he  has  wiped  the  chalice  with  a  sponge  he  says  this  prayer  of 
Mar  Ephraim,  Wipe  away,  0  Lord,  with  the  sponge  of  thy  mercy.... 
And  when  he  washes  his  hands  he  says,  May  the  living  fire  of 
thy  precious  body  and  blood.... And  he  washes  his  fingers  thrice, 
beginning  with  the  right  hand,  and  says,  Let  my  fingers  rehearse 
thy  praises. ...At  the  left  hand  he  says,  Guard  me,  0  Lord,  from 
all  harm.... And  when  he  drinks  the  wine  which  he  has  mixed 
for  the  ablution2  he  says,  They  shall  be  sati spied... (Ps.  xxxvi). 
He  washes  his  hands  in  water  and  says  this  psalm,  Be  thou  my 

1  Assemani,  vol.  v.  pp.  215-223. 

2  Lit.  the  "deaconess,"  that  which  is  employed  in  the  ministry,  or 
service  (of  cleansing  the  fingers  and  chalice). 


22 


IN  THE  EAST  [ch. 


judge... (Ps.  xxvi).  He  wipes  his  hands  and  says,  Bring  unto 
the  Lord...  (Ps.  xxix)... Verse,  Not  to  judgment  or  condemna- 
tion...1. 

The  similarity  between  these  rubrics  of  the  Maronite 
and  Jacobite  rites  suggests  that  there  has  been  little 
change  in  the  ceremony  of  the  ablutions  since  the  Maro- 
nites  submitted  to  Rome  at  the  end  of  the  twelfth  century, 
and  the  fact  that  both  sets  of  rubrics,  and  particularly  the 
Maronite  version,  are  very  similar  to  the  description  given 
by  Dionysius  Barsalibi,  confirms  the  idea. 

In  the  anaphora  of  St  James  at  the  time  of  communion 
we  read : 

And  these  verses,  as  also  many  others,  are  diminished  or 
lengthened  according  to  the  number  of  communicants.  Im- 
mediately the  priest  wipes  the  vessels  with  the  help  of  the 
deacon,  and  then  is  said  the  prayer  of  thanksgiving2. 

At  first  sight  this  rubric  seems  to  suggest  that  the 
ablutions  took  place  immediately  after  the  communion. 
Yet  it  would  be  curious  if  two  anaphoras  of  the  same  rite 
ordered  entirely  contradictory  customs  on  such  a  point  as 
this,  and  we  notice  that  only  the  wiping  of  the  vessels  is 
mentioned,  and  nothing  is  said  about  any  consumption  of 
the  remains,  or  of  any  washing  either  of  the  vessels  or  of 
the  priest's  hands.  It  seems  more  probable  that  we  have 
a  practice  similar  to  that  ordered  in  certain  texts  of  the 
liturgy  of  St  Chrysostom  after  the  priest's  communion, 
where  we  read : 

And  he  receives  thrice  from  it,  and  then  wipes  both  his 
own  lips  and  the  holy  chalice  with  the  veil  which  is  in  his 
hands3. 

1  Renaudot,  vol.  n.  pp.  25-28.  CI  Brightman,  pp.  106-8.  Howard,  The 
Christians  of  Si  Thomas  and  their  Liturgies,  pp.  250-263. 

2  Renaudot,  vol.  11.  p.  42. 

3  Hammond,  Liturgies  Eastern  and  Western,  p.  125.  Cf.  Swainson, 
Th'.  Greek  Liturgies,  p.  140.    Daniel,  Codex  Liturgicus,  vol.  IV.  p.  368. 


ii]  IN  THE  EAST  23 

In  the  Coptic  liturgy  of  St  Basil,  according  to  a  manu- 
script of  perhaps  the  fourteenth  century,  after  the  prayer 
of  inclination  which  follows  the  communion  we  read  at 
the  very  end  of  the  liturgy: 

Let  the  priest  say  the  benediction,  0  Lord  be  merciful  unto 
«s....When  he  has  finished  the  washing  of  the  vessels,  let  him 
drink  the  water  which  remains  in  them,  and  let  him  dismiss 
the  people  when  he  has  said  the  benediction1. 

The  modern  service  books  make  it  clear  that  the  ablu- 
tions still  come  at  the  end  of  the  service  between  the 
prayer  of  inclination  and  the  final  blessing,  though  only 
the  washing  of  the  priest's  hands  is  mentioned.  In  the 
1887  edition  we  read: 

The  people  shall  sa3^,  Kyrie  eleison.  Then  the  priest'  shall 
pour  water  upon  his  hands,  and  shall  make  the  sign  with  a 
little  thereof  upon  the  table  and  shall  say,  Angel  of  this  sacri- 
fice.... Then  he  shall  wipe  his  face  with  his  hand  and  his  brother 
priests  above  and  below,  and  the  whole  congregation  (shall 
do  the  like),  and  he  shall  bless  them  and  give  them  the  dis- 
missal, and  shall  end  with  reading  the  blessing2. 

In  the  fourteenth  century  commentary  of  Abu'l  Bircat 
on  the  Coptic  liturgy  we  read  with  reference  to  the  con- 
sumption of  the  remains : 

And  when  he  has  completed  these  things  with  regard  to  the 
distribution  of  the  communion,  the  priest  will  take  care  that 
if  by  chance  any  particle  however  small  of  the  body  be  left 
over  he  gather  it  up  and  give  it  to  those  ministering  at  the 
altar.  Let  the  deacon  also  bear  away  the  chalice  in  which  the 
priest  has  communicated  with  the  despoticon3,  and  likewise 
the  blood  if  any  of  it  be  left  over4. 

The  remains  of  the  particles  intended  for  the  people  are 
evidently  consumed  immediately  after  the  communion, 
but   the   chalice   used  at   the   consecration   and   for  the 

1  Renaudot,  vol.  i.  p.  25.  2  Brightman,  p.  188. 

3  The  central  portion  of  the  host.  4  Renaudot,  vol.  1.  p.  293. 


24  IN  THE  EAST  [ch. 

priest's  communion  into  which  the  despoticon  was  placed, 
is  taken  away.  According  to  an  ancient  canon,  however, 
neither  it  nor  the  other  sacred  vessels  are  cleansed  until 
after  the  service  is  ended,  for  it  is  the  function  of  the 
priests  and  deacons  who  performed  the  liturgy,  and  so  it 
is  unlikely  that  the  despoticon  and  the  remains  of  the 
chalice  are  consumed  earlier.   We  read : 

It  is  forbidden  to  priests  to  give  any  layman  the  duty  of 
washing  the  chalice  and  the  other  sacred  vessels,  or  to  permit 
them  to  drink  the  water  of  ablution,  which  ought  to  be  drunk 
by  the  priests  and  deacons  who  have  officiated1. 

Among  Questions  and  Answers  according  to  the  Doctrine  of 
the  Fathers  of  uncertain  date  we  find  a  decision  prescribing 
what  is  to  be  done  when  a  particle  of  the  consecrated  host  is 
discovered  after  the  ablutions,  and  this  makes  it  still  plainer 
that  the  cleansing  of  the  vessels  takes  place  after  the  service. 
We  read : 

After  the  communion,  when  the  liturgy  is  finished,  and  the 
priest  has  washed  the  sacred  vessels,  and  has  drunk  the  water 
of  their  ablution,  if  he  finds  a  particle  of  the  holy  body  on  the 
table  of  the  altar  or  in  the  veil  what  ought  he  to  do?  Should 
he  receive  it  after  having  taken  the  ablution?  Ought  the  water 
which  he  has  drunk  to  be  considered  as  having  caused  him  to 
break  his  fast  or  not,  since  it  has  been  poured  on  the  paten  and 
chalice  which  were  imbued  with  the  holy  body  and  the  precious 
blood?  When  the  sacred  ministry  of  the  liturgy  is  finished  and 
the  priest  has  washed  the  sacred  vessels,  and  has  drunk  the 
water  of  their  ablution,  if  he  finds  any  particle  of  the  body  as 
has  been  mentioned  above  he  ought  not  in  any  wise  to  take  it, 
but  he  should  enquire  if  there  is  any  priest  among  his  colleagues 
or  any  deacon  who  has  communicated  and  who  has  not  taken 
the  water  of  ablution,  and  if  he  finds  such  an  one  he  should 
give  him  the  particle  of  the  body  which  he  has  found.  After- 
wards he  should  again  wash  his  hands  over  the  paten  and  give 

1  PerpStuiU  de  la  Foi,  m.  7,  vol.  III.  col.  21  r. 


ii]  IN  THE  EAST  25 

him  who  has  received  the  particle  the  water  of  ablution  to 
drink.  If  there  is  no  ecclesiastic  or  layman  fasting  and  of  age 
to  receive  the  communion  the  priest  should  still  beware  of 
taking  it  after  he  has  taken  the  water  of  ablution  of  the  sacred 
vessels  and  of  his  hands,  the  liturgy  being  finished  and  the 
distribution  of  the  body  of  Jesus  Christ  ended,  because  he  has 
broken  his  fast  by  the  water  which  he  has  drunk  and  therefore 
cannot  receive  the  communion  of  the  holy  body.  He  should 
then  place  this  particle  which  he  has  found  on  the  paten  and 
light  two  candles  about  it  and  a  lamp  towards  the  east :  then 
he  should  himself  stay  to  guard  the  body  until  the  following 
day.  And  when  the  liturgy  is  celebrated  he  should  receive  it 
fasting  without  performing  any  function  at  the  altar,  and  he 
should  wash  his  hands  with  water  which  he  should  drink.  After 
all  this  he  should  do  a  very  severe  penance  because  of  the 
negligence  he  has  shown  with  regard  to  the  body  and  blood  of 
the  Son  of  God  which  was  poured  out  for  the  salvation  of  His 
creatures1. 

In  the  rite  as  used  by  the  Coptic  Uniats  the  directions 
have  been  considerably  Romanized,  and  both  the  con- 
sumption of  the  remains  and  the  ablutions  take  place 
immediately  after  the  communion.  In  the  text  of  the 
liturgy  as  given  by  the  Marquess  of  Bute,  which  is  based 
on  the  edition  (in  Coptic  and  Arabic)  of  Raphael  Tuki, 
Bishop  of  Arsinoe,  printed  at  Rome  in  1736,  though 
taking  note  of  modern  practice,  we  read : 

If  there  are  communicants  they  approach  and  he  communi- 
cates them  saying  to  each,  This  is  in  very  truth  the  body  and  the 
blood  of  Emmanuel  our  God.  Amen.  He  then  moves  the  paten 
crosswise  towards  the  people,  turns,  and  replaces  it  on  the 
altar.  He  consumes  what  remains  of  the  sacred  host,  saying 
again,  This  is  in  very  truth  the  body  of  Emmanuel  our  God. 
Amen;  and  then  after  cleansing  the  paten  into  the  chalice 
what  remains  of  the  blood,  saying,  This  is  in  very  truth  the  blood 

1  Perpetuite  de  la  Foi,  in.  7,  vol.  ill.  col.  21 1-2.  Cf.  Renaudot,  vol.  1. 
p.  294. 


26  IN  THE  EAST  [ch. 

of  Emmanuel  our  God,  Amen.  He  holds  out  the  chalice  into 
which  the  deacon  pours  some  wine,  and  the  priest  says,  Peace 
be  unto  all.  The  people  answer,  And  unto  thy  spirit.  He  drinks 
the  wine.  Then  wine  and  water  are  poured  over  his  fingers  into 
the  chalice  and  he  drinks  it,  and  wipes  and  arranges  the  chalice 
saying  meanwhile  inaudibly  in  Arabic,  Our  mouth  is  filled  with 
gladness...1. 

The  Nestorian  custom  is  very  extraordinary,  and  ob- 
viously arose  through  a  corruption  of  the  practice  by  which 
the  remains  of  the  consecrated  elements  were  consumed 
after  the  service.  After  the  blessing  which  concludes  the 
liturgy  proper  there  is  a  "Prayer  on  receiving  the  Holy 
Thing,"  and  another  "In  ordering  the  Mysteries2."  This 
ordering  is  really  the  consumption  of  what  remains  after 
the  communion  of  the  people,  and  the  previous  prayer  is 
explained  by  the  fact  that  according  to  modern  usage  the 
celebrant  himself  does  not  communicate  until  after  the 
benediction  when  he  consumes  what  is  left.  In  earlier  days 
certainly  the  usual  custom  prevailed  by  which  the  priest 
communicated  after  the  Lord's  prayer  which  marked  the 
end  of  the  eucharistic  prayer,  and  before  the  communion 
of  the  people,  and  it  is  this  which  is  described  in  the 
Liturgical  Homilies  of  Narsai  (f  c.  502)3.  At  some  later  date 
the  priest's  act  of  communion  was  postponed  and  combined 
with  the  consumption  of  the  remnants  of  the  sacrament 
left  from  the  people's  communion,  at  the  close  of  the 
service. 

At  Constantinople  the  practice  of  giving  the  remains  of 
the  eucharist  to  children  survived  until  quite  a  late  period, 
for  Nicephorus  Callistus  (c.  1333)  in  his  Ecclesiastical 
History,  taking  up  the  words  of  Evagrius,  says  the  custom 
was  still  in  vogue  in  his  youth : 

1  Marquess  of  Bute,  Coptic  Morning  Service,  p.  113. 

2  The  Liturgy  of  the  Holy  Apostles  Adai  and  Mari,  S.P.C.K.,  p.  38. 
Cf.  Brightman,  p.  304. 

3  Connolly,  The  Liturgical  Homilies  of  Narsai,  p.  27. 


ii]  IN  THE  EAST  27 

A  custom  has  prevailed  for  a  long  time  in  the  queen  of  cities 
that  whenever  there  was  a  large  quantity  of  pieces  of  the 
spotless  and  divine  body  of  our  Lord  and  God  and  Saviour 
Jesus  Christ  left  over  the  priests  should  fetch  uncorrupted  boys 
of  those  who  attend  the  school  of  grammar,  and  that  they 
should  eat  the  remnants  fasting.  And  this  indeed  frequently 
happened  to  me  also  when  I  was  quite  a  boy,  and  particularly 
when  at  a  tender  age  I  was  engaged  in  study  in  the  sacred 
courts1. 

In  the  Paschal  Chronicle  for  the  year  624  we  get  some 
information  about  the  arrangements  at  the  conclusion  of 
the  liturgy  among  the  Greeks,  but  nothing  is  said  definitely 
about  the  consumption  of  the  remains,  or  the  ablutions  of 
the  vessels.   We  read  : 

It  was  arranged  that  there  should  be  singing  after  all  have 
partaken  of  the  holy  mysteries,  as  the  clergy  are  about  to  put 
away  the  precious  fans,  patens,  and  chalices,  and  other  holy 
vessels  in  the  sacristy,  after  the  removal  of  all  things  from  the 
credence  after  the  distribution  and  the  singing  of  the  last  verse 
of  the  Communion2. 

A  canon  of  the  Typicon  of  Nicephorus,  patriarch  of 
Constantinople  (806-815),  gives  some  particulars  with 
regard  to  the  ablutions: 

Let  the  priest  look  at  the  people  first  and  sacrifice  the  holy 
gifts  so  that  there  may  not  be  a  superabundance,  and  let  no 
one  dare  to  touch  them  alone :  but  for  thyself  do  thou  distribute 
them  to  the  people,  and  after  they  have  partaken  of  them  wash 
the  chalice  round  with  wine  twice  and  with  water  once  in  the 
fear  of  God3. 

We  have  reference  to  several  points  in  the  service  in 
these  directions,  before  the  consecration,  the  communion, 

1  Hist.  Eccles.  xvn.  25,  P.G.  cxlvii.  col.  280. 

2  Chronicon  Paschale,  P.G.  xcn.  col.  1001. 

3  Pitra,  Juris  Eccles.  Grace.  Hist,  et  Mon.  vol.  11.  p.  341. 


28  IN  THE  EAST  [ch. 

and  the  ablutions,  and  there  is  nothing  to  show  when  the 
last  takes  place. 

In  the  texts  of  the  liturgies  of  St  Basil  and  St  Chrysostom 
as  given  in  the  ninth  century  Barberini  manuscript 
nothing  is  said  about  the  consumption  of  the  remains  or 
of  the  ablutions,  but  at  the  end  of  the  latter  we  find  "a 
prayer  at  the  gathering  up  of  the  holy  gifts,  The  fulness  of 
the  law. . ."  corresponding  to  "a  prayer  in  the  sacristy" 
in  the  former1,  so  that  both  must  have  taken  place  in  the 
sacristy  after  the  service. 

In  an  eleventh  century  codex  of  the  liturgy  of  St 
Chrysostom  we  have  an  expansion  of  the  short  rubrics  of 
the  earlier  text.  The  liturgy  of  St  Basil  agrees  almost 
identically.   We  read : 

Then  the  communion  being  finished  and  the  holy  remnants 
taken  up  from  the  divine  table,  the  priest  prays  on,  We  give 
thee  thanks. ...And  when  he  is  about  to  return  the  holy  gifts 
where  they  were  set  forth,  on  taking  them  from  the  holy  table 
the  deacon  censes  them  thrice.  The  priest  says  to  himself, 
Be  thou  exalted... and  taking  them  up  he  says  aloud,  At  all 
times,  now  and  always  and  for  ever  and  ever.  And  on  returning 
from  the  prothesis2  both  deacon  and  priest,  the  deacon  says, 
Stand  up.  Having  received  the  divine,  holy,  spotless,  immortal, 
heavenly  and  lifcgiving,  awful  mysteries  of  Christ,  let  us  give 
thanks  to  the  Lord.. ..A.  prayer  at  the  gathering  up  of  the  holy 
things,  The  fulness  of  the  law...3. 

We  note  that  the  remains  of  the  consecrated  elements 
are  taken  away  to  the  prothesis  by  the  priest  and  deacon 
together  after  "Be  thou  exalted,"  and  before  the  deacon's 
call  to  thanksgiving.  The  consumption  of  them  evidently 
takes  place  in  the  sacristy,  or  at  the  prothesis,  after  the 

1  Brightman,  p.  344. 

2  The  place  where  the  oblation  is  set  forth,  properly  the  act  of  setting 
it  forth. 

3  Swainson,  The  Greek  Liturgies,  pp.  i4i~3.   Cf.  pp.  169-71. 


ii]  IN  THE  EAST  29 

service.  The  title  of  the  prayer  said  meanwhile  now  speaks 
of  "holy  things,"  not  of  "holy  gifts." 

In  an  order  for  the  liturgy  published  by  Philotheus, 
Patriarch  of  Constantinople  in  the  fourteenth  century,  the 
directions  of  the  canon  of  Nicephorus  are  elaborated,  and 
we  read  that  the  deacon  washes  the  chalice  thrice  with 
wine  and  water,  and  wipes  it  with  the  sponge,  and  washes 
his  hands  and  lips,  saying  Nunc  dimittis,  etc.  With 
regard  to  the  priest  it  says  "He  washes  (his  hands) 
thoroughly1." 

In  a  sixteenth  century  manuscript  of  the  liturgy  of  St 
Chrysostom  we  have  still  further  development,  and  again 
we  find  practically  the  same  directions  in  the  liturgy  of 
St  Basil.    We  read: 

Then  the  deacon  taking  the  holy  paten  sponges  it  over  the 
holy  chalice  quite  thoroughly,  and  with  care  and  reverence 
covers  the  holy  chalice  with  the  veil.  Likewise  also  he  puts 
the  star  and  the  veils  over  the  holy  paten.  And  they  open  the 
door  of  the  sanctuary,  and  the  deacon,  bowing  once,  takes 
the  holy  chalice  with  reverence  and  goes  to  the  door,  and 
elevating  the  holy  chalice  shows  it  to  the  people,  saying,  In  the 
fear  of  God  and  love  draw  near. ...And  both  the  deacon  and 
priest  return  to  the  holy  table  and  the  priest  censes  it  thrice, 
saying  to  himself,  Be  thou  exalted.... Then  taking  the  holy  paten 
he  puts  it  upon  the  head  of  the  deacon,  and  the  deacon  takes 
it  with  reverence,  looks  outside  towards  the  door,  and  saying 
nothing  departs  to  the  prothesis  and  puts  it  down.  And  the 
priest  bows  and  takes  the  holy  chalice,  and  turns  towards  the 
door,  and  looks  at  the  people  saying,  Blessed  be  our  God.  Then 
he  says  aloud,  At  all  times,  now  and  always  and  for  ever  and  ever... 
And  immediately  he  says  secretly  the  prayer,  We  give  thee 
thanks.... The  deacon  standing  in  the  accustomed  place  says, 
Having  received  the  divine. ...A  prayer  at  the  gathering  up  of 

1  Sirkov,  Histoire  de  la  correction  des  livres  en  Bulgarie  au  XI  Ve  siecle 
(in  Russian),  vol.  i.  p.  172.  See  Gabrol  and  Leclercq,  Dictionnaire 
d' Archiologie  Chritienne  et  de  Liturgie,  vol.  1.  Pt.  1.  col.  no. 


30  IN  THE  EAST  [ch. 

the  holy  things,  secretly,  The  fulness  of  the  law....Aito,v  the 
prayer  the  priest  departs  and  standing  in  the  accustomed 
place  distributes  the  antidoron1.  Then  he  makes  the  dismissal.... 
And  having  blessed  the  people  he  goes  in  again.  And  after 
the  dismissal,  if  there  is  no  deacon  the  priest  enters  the  pro- 
thesis  and  receives  what  is  left  in  the  holy  chalice,  carefully 
and  reverently.  And  he  washes  the  holy  chalice  thrice  and 
looks  if  anything,  what  is  called  a  pearl,  remain.  Then  he  says, 
Lord  now  lettest  thou.. ..And.  he  gathers  together  the  holy  things, 
the  chalice  and  the  paten  with  the  veils  according  to  custom ; 
but  if  there  is  a  deacon  he  does  it.  And  the  priest  departs  into 
the  sacristy  and  unvests2. 

We  notice  that  the  "holy  things"  are  no  longer  the 
consecrated  elements,  but  the  sacred  vessels. 

The  modern  rubrics  are  almost  identical  with  those  of 
the  sixteenth  century.  The  prayer  "We  give  thee  thanks" 
said  secretly  by  the  priest  is  no  longer  said  after  the  com- 
munion of  the  people,  but  after  the  priest's  own  com- 
munion and  before  the  opening  of  the  door  of  the  sanctu- 
ary. The  latter  part  reads : 

And  when  this  (the  dismissal)  is  finished  the  priest  enters 
through  the  holy  doors  and  departing  to  the  prothesis  says 
the  following  prayer  secretly,  The  fulness  of  the  law. ...And. 
the  deacon  enters,  but  he  through  the  north  part,  and  gathers 
up  the  holy  things  with  fear  and  safety  so  that  nothing  at  all 
even  the  least  portion  of  the  holy  things  fall  away  or  be  left 
behind,  and  he  washes  his  hands  in  the  accustomed  place.  And 
the  priest  goes  outside  and  distributes  the  antidoron  to  the 
people.  Then  entering  the  sanctuary  he  puts  off  the  priestly 
vestments,  saying,  Lord  now  lettest  thou...3. 

The  authorities  of  the  Greek  Church  in  Bayswater  have 
very  kindly  supplied  some  further  particulars  with  regard 
to  modern  practice : 

1  The  blessed  bread,  the  remains  of  the  unconsecrated  oblations  left 
over  from  the  prothesis. 

2  Swainson,  pp.  140-4.  J  Brightman,  pp.  398-9. 


ii]  IN  THE  EAST  31 

After  loud  utterance  of  the  priest,  At  all  times,  now  and 
always  and  for  ever,  the  priest  himself,  and  not  the  deacon, 
removes  the  consecrated  elements  to  the  table  of  the  prothesis. 
When  more  than  one  priest  is  officiating  from  that  moment 
onwards,  and  especially  after  the  dismissal,  one  of  the  other 
officiating  priests,  or  the  officiating  deacon,  could  consume  the 
consecrated  elements.  But  if  the  officiating  priest  has  no 
assistant  (priest  or  deacon)  he  has  no  time  to  consume  them 
other  than  after  the  distribution  of  the  antidoron1. 

Further  details  are  as  follows: 

At  the  close  of  the  liturgy  the  officiating  priest  carries  the 
consecrated  elements  to  the  table  of  the  prothesis,  where  the 
officiating  deacon,  and  if  not  the  officiating  priest,  consumes  the 
remainder.  He  then  pours  a  little  warm  water  and  wine  into 
the  chalice  to  cleanse  it,  and  consumes  these  also.  He  repeats 
this  action  several  times,  until  he  is  certain  that  no  "partiele" 
or  "pearl"  remains,  and  consumes  them  each  time.  Then  in 
order  to  remove  any  dampness  from  the  interior  of  the  chalice, 
he  uses  a  special  cloth  with  which  he  wipes  it,  and  then  he 
places  a  round  sponge  in  it,  leaving  it  there  till  the  next  liturgy2. 

The  late  Mr  W.  J.  Birkbeck  has  given  a  description 
based  on  his  own  observation  of  what  happens  at  the 
consumption  of  the  remains  of  the  consecrated  elements 
and  the  ablutions  in  the  Russian  Church.  He  shows  the 
full  liturgical  setting.   We  read : 

After  the  communion  of  the  people  the  priest  places  the 
chalice,  now  containing  the  whole  of  what  is  left  of  both  species 
of  the  holy  sacrament,  on  the  altar,  and  the  deacon  after 
removing  with  the  sponge  the  merides  (or  unconsecrated 
particles  of  bread  placed  on  the  paten  at  the  beginning  of  the 
service  in  memory  of  the  mother  of  God,  and  the  various  saints 
and  members  of  the  church  living  and  departed  on  behalf  of 
whom  the  liturgy  is  offered)  from  the  paten  into  the  chalice, 

1  Letter  dated  Sept.  17th,  1916. 

2  Letter  dated  Jan.  nth,  1916. 


32  IN  THE  EAST  [ch. 

covers  it  with  the  veil.... The  priest  then  says  the  post-com- 
munion prayer  of  thanksgiving  at  the  altar.  He  then  goes  to 
the  royal  doors  and  blesses  the  people  saying,  0  God,  save  thy 
people  and  bless  thine  inheritance,  and  the  choir  sing  the 
anthem,  We  have  seen  the  true  light,  etc.  during  which  the  priest 
returns  to  the  altar,  and  after  censing  the  altar  with  three 
swings  of  the  censer  gives  the  paten  to  the  deacon  to  take  to 
the  prothesis  table,  and  after  adoring  takes  the  chalice  in  his 
hands  and  showing  it  to  the  people  says,  Blessed  is  our  God, 
always  now  and  ever,  world  without  end,  and  then  while  the  choir 
sing  another  troparion1  he  takes  the  chalice  to  the  prothesis 
table  and  puts  it  down.  Then  follow  some  more  prayers, 
occupying  three  whole  pages  of  the  Russian  service  book, 
consisting  chiefly  of  a  short  litany  said  by  the  deacon,  the 
Let  us  go  forth  in  peace,  which  corresponds  with  the  Western 
lie  missa  est,  and  the  long  prayer  behind  the  ambo2,  which  the 
priest  comes  out  into  the  nave  to  read.  It  is  only  after  this 
that  the  deacon,  if  he  has  already  communicated,  returns  to 
the  prothesis  and  consumes  what  remains  of  the  holy  sacra- 
ment, and  takes  the  ablutions,  the  priest  meanwhile  distributing 
the  antidoron,  or  bringing  the  cross  into  the  nave  for  the 
people  to  kiss.  But  supposing  as  is  most  frequently  the  case 
on  ordinary  days,  that  the  deacon  has  not  made  his  com- 
munion, then  the  priest  himself  returns  to  the  prothesis  and 
takes  the  ablutions,  but  not  until  after  the  whole  service  is 
over  and  the  people  gone3. 

Mr  Birkbeck  has  also  given  the  usage  of  other  Eastern 
churches  with  respect  to  the  consumption  of  the  remains 
of  the  eucharist  and  the  ablutions,  the  observed  practice 
agreeing  generally  with  the  rubrics  of  the  liturgies : 

With  regard  to  the  practice  of  other  Eastern  rites  besides 
that  of  the  Orthodox  Eastern  Church  in  this  matter  I  can  only 

1  A  short  hymn. 

2  The  pulpit,  originally  in  the  middle  of  the  church. 

3  Letter  dated  Aug.  15th  in  Church  Times  for  Aug.  19th,  1910, 
vol.  lxiv.  p.  216. 


ii]  IN  THE  EAST  33 

speak  positively  with  regard  to  the  Syrian  Jacobite  and  the 
East  Syrian  Nestorian  rites.  Both  of  these  agree  with  the 
Orthodox  Eastern  Church  in  deferring  the  consumption  of  what 
remains  of  the  blessed  sacrament  and  of  the  ablutions  to  the 
end  of  the  service  and  not  taking  them  as  in  the  Roman  rite 
immediately  after  the  communion1. 

With  regard  to  the  Uniat  rites  when  I  saw  the  Syrian  Jacobite 
and  the  Chaldaean  Uniat  rites  the  ablutions  were  taken  after 
the  blessing.  TheRuthenian  books  retain  the  Byzantine  rubrics, 
and  in  the  vast  majority  of  instances  in  which  I  have  seen 
their  rite  used,  whether  in  Rome  or  in  Austria,  they  have  been 
strictly  followed  so  far  as  the  ablutions  are  concerned.  Only 
on  two  occasions,  once  in  Galicia  and  once  in  Vienna,  have  I 
seen  the  rubric  disregarded  and  the  Latin  custom  followed. 
But  this  was  before  Leo  XIII  in  the  early  nineties  took  measures 
against  the  tinkering  of  the  Uniat  rites  in  a  Latin  direction, 
and  I  am  informed  that  this  disregard  of  plain  directions  would 
not  be  possible  now2. 

In  the  Armenian  liturgy  which  is  Romanized  at  various 
points  the  remains  are  consumed  immediately  after  the 
communion  before  the  thanksgiving  and  blessing.  We 
read: 

During  the  communion  the  choir  sing  the  hymns  proper  for 
the  day,  and  also,  We  have  been  filled.... Whilst  the  choir  is 
singing  the  priest  consumes  what  remains  of  the  sacred 
elements,  and  then  repeats  in  secret  these  prayers  of  thanks- 
giving, We  give  thanks  unto  thee...3. 

In  all  these  different  extracts  illustrating  the  practice 
of  the  churches  of  the  East  at  so  many  different  places  and 
times  we  find  great  variety  of  usage,  but  whether  the 
remains  of  the  consecrated  species  remained  on  the  altar 
until  the  end  of  the  service  or  not  the  primitive  practice 

1  Church  Times,  Sept.  2nd,  1910,  vol.  lxiv.  p.  272. 

2  Church  Times,  Sept.  16th,  1910,  vol.  lxiv.  p.  352. 

3  Fortescue,  The  Armenian  Church,  pp.  107-8.  Cf.  Daniel,  Codex 
Liturgicus,  vol.  iv.  p.  478. 

L.  E.  3 


34  IN  THE  EAST  [ch.  ii 

still  persisted  in  the  majority  of  instances  where  Roman 
influence  is  absent,  and  they  were  not  disposed  of  until 
the  liturgy  was  ended,  and  in  any  case  the  cleansing  of  the 
sacred  vessels  did  not  usually  take  place  until  the  service 
was  finished;  and  clearly  while  the  custom  of  consuming 
the  remains  of  the  eucharist  after  the  conclusion  of  the 
service  continued  nothing  in  the  way  of  ablutions  of  the 
sacred  vessels  could  possibly  take  place  at  an  earlier 
point.  There  can  thus  be  little  doubt  but  that  this  was  the 
primitive  usage  in  the  matter,  and  that  in  the  earliest 
days  all  cleansing  of  the  vessels  must  have  been  performed 
afterwards  in  the  sacristy. 


CHAPTER  III 
IN  THE  WEST 

THE  practice  of  giving  what  remained  over  of  the 
consecrated  elements  after  communion  at  mass  to 
boys  continued  in  the  West,  as  well  as  in  the  East,  for 
some  centuries.  At  the  third  council  of  Tours  under 
Charles  the  Great  in  813  a  word  of  caution  on  the  subject 
was  still  found  necessary : 

Priests  must  be  expressly  admonished  that  when  they  have 
performed  the  sacred  solemnities  of  the  mass,  and  have  com- 
municated the  people,  they  give  not  the  body  of  the  Lord 
carelessly  to  boys,  or  any  other  persons  who  are  standing 
b}',  without  distinction1. 

Traces  of  this  custom,  and  of  child  communion,  are 
found  much  later.  About  the  year  1198  in  a  synod  held 
under  Odo  of  Paris  it  was  decreed : 

Priests  are  straitly  charged  that  they  in  no  wise  give  hosts, 
even  though  not  consecrated,  to  boys2. 

The  synod  of  Clermont  in  1268  modified  this  prescription 
and  evidently  has  unconsecrated  hosts  chiefly  in  view: 

We  forbid  priests  to  give  hosts,  though  not  consecrated,  to 
boys  except  on  Easter  Day,  in  the  place  of  blessed  bread,  and 
then  let  them  eat  them  immediately,  and  not  carry  them  out 
of  the  church3. 

Another  modification  of  the  Parisian  canon  was  issued 
at  Bayeux  (c.  1300)  : 

1  Hardouin,  vol.  iv.  col.  1025. 

2  Hardouin,  vol.  vi.  2,  col.  1945.         s  Hardouin,  vol.  vn.  col.  593. 

3—2 


36  IN  THE  WEST  [ch. 

We  forbid  priests  in  any  wise  to  give  sacred  hosts  to  boys 
under  the  age  of  seven  years1. 

Here  apparently  it  is  consecrated  hosts  which  are  pro- 
hibited, as  in  1255  at  Bordeaux,  where  a  canon,  known 
evidently  at  Clermont,  forbade  anything  but  blessed  bread 
to  be  given  to  boys  even  for  communion  at  Easter2. 

On  Maundy  Thursday  there  was  a  similar  custom  of 
giving  unconsecrated  hosts  to  the  poor,  presumably  those 
whose  feet  were  washed  in  the  ceremony  of  the  Mandatum, 
and  it  persisted  for  some  centuries,  for  we  find  it  in  the 
Statutes  of  Lanfranc,  the  Constitutions  of  Ulrich  of  Cluny, 
the  ancient  Ordinary  of  Corbie,  and  the  Customs  of  St 
Benignus  of  Dijon,  representing  the  practice  of  the 
eleventh  and  twelfth  centuries3. 

The  sixteenth  council  of  Toledo  in  693  required  the 
eucharistic  loaves  to  be  made  of  only  moderate  size, 
because  of  the  difficulty  otherwise  of  consuming  the  re- 
mains.   We  read : 

The  assembly  has  unanimously  decided  that  no  bread  be  set 
forth  on  the  altar  of  the  Lord  to  be  hallowed  by  the  benediction 
of  the  priest  save  that  which  is  whole  and  fair,  which  has  been 
prepared  with  care.  And  let  not  anything  big  but  only  those 
of  moderate  size  be  offered,  as  the  custom  of  the  church  main- 
tains, so  that  the  remnants  of  it,  if  they  are  to  be  reserved, 
may  be  more  easily  reserved  without  any  injury  in  a  moderate 
compass,  or  if  it  is  necessary  to  consume  them,  it  may  not 
oppress  and  overload  the  stomach  of  him  who  takes  them4. 

A  canon  of  uncertain  date,  perhaps  belonging  to  the 
synod  of  Rodomum  about  the  year  878,  reads: 

We  have  been  told  that  certain  priests  when  they  have 
celebrated  mass,  refusing  themselves  to  consume  the  divine 

1  Hardouin,  vol.  vn.  col.  1228.  2  Hardouin,  vol.  vn.  col.  471. 

3  Martene,  De  Ant.  Eccles.  Riiibus,  1783,  vol.  iv.  lib.  in.  cap.  xiii. 
§  xxxiii.  p.  126. 

4  Hardouin,  vol.  in.  col.  1797. 


in]  IN  THE  WEST  37 

mysteries  which  they  have  consecrated,  give  the  Lord's  cup 
to  poor  women  who  offer  at  mass,  or  to  certain  laymen  who 
know  not  how  to  discern  the  Lord's  body,  that  is  to  distinguish 
between  spiritual  food  and  carnal.  How  contrary  this  is  to 
the  whole  religion  of  the  church  the  piety  of  the  faithful 
knows.  Wherefore  we  forbid  it  to  all  priests,  so  that  no  one 
for  the  future  may  presume  to  do  this ;  but  let  him  either  con- 
sume- it  himself  with  reverence,  or  entrust  it  to  either  the 
deacon  or  subdeacon  who  are  ministers  of  the  altar  to  gather 
up1. 

The  pseudo  Alcuin  (eleventh  century?)  likewise  tells  us 
that  this  duty  was  entrusted  to  the  deacon  and  subdeacon. 
He  says: 

The  subdeacon  is  the  under-minister,  because  he  is  under 
the  deacon,  that  is,  under  the  minister.... The  sacrifice  being 
finished  he  takes  up  the  mysteries  of  the  body  and  blood  of 
the  Lord  which  were  left  over,  to  be  gathered  up  or  carried 
away  by  the  deacon2. 

A  passage  in  the  life  of  St  Adalbert,  Bishop  of  Prague 
(fc.  997),  in  language  almost  identical  with  that  of  the 
pseudo  Alcuin,  speaks  of  a  similar  custom  at  the  end  of 
mass: 

Whatever  was  left  over  of  that  from  which  he  and  the  newly 
baptized  had  communicated  he  commanded  to  be  gathered  up, 
and  he  kept  it  for  himself,  wrapped  in  a  most  clean  cloth,  to 
carry  it  away  for  viaticum3. 

The  document  most  frequently  quoted  as  the  authority 
for  the  traditional  practice  of  the  West  with  regard  to  the 
disposal  of  the  remnants  of  the  eucharist  after  the  com- 
munion is  the  apocryphal  letter  of  Clement  the  First  of 
Rome  to  James  the  Lord's  brother,  which  we  have  already 
discussed4.     We   find  it   quoted   by   most   of  the  early 

1  Hardouin,  vol.  vi.  1,  p.  205. 

2  De  Div.  Off.  in  Hittorp,  De  Div.  Cath.  Eccl.  Off.  et  Myst.  1610,  col. 
269. 

s  P.L.  cxxxvn.  col.  884.  *  See  pp.  11-18. 


38  IN  THE  WEST  [ch. 

canonists.  Remigius,  Bishop  of  Coire  {c.  830),  entitles  his 
extract "  What  is  allowed  with  regard  to  the  Lord's  body1." 
In  the  forged  decretals  of  the  pseudo  Isidore  (c.  850) 
according  to  some  manuscripts  the  summary  of  the 
passage  is  "that  the  sacraments  of  the  divine  secrets 
are  committed  to  three  orders,  and  that  priests,  deacons 
and  ministers  perform  the  sacraments  of  the  church 
carefully  and  without  negligence2."  Regino  of  Priim 
(f  915)  heads  his  quotation  "Carefulness  with  regard  to 
the  Lord's  body3."  Burchard,  Bishop  of  Worms  (f  1025), 
summarises  the  rule  as  follows,  "So  many  oblations  as 
will  suffice  for  the  people  are  to  be  offered,  and  what  are 
left  are  not  to  be  kept  till  the  morrow4."  Ivo  of  Chartres 
(f  1 1 15)  quotes  the  letter  in  each  of  his  two  collections, 
heading  it  in  one  case  "By  whom  the  Lord's  sacraments 
are  to  be  handled,"  and  in  the  other  "So  many  hosts  are 
to  be  offered  on  the  altar  as  will  be  able  to  suffice  the 
people,  and  what  is  left  is  to  be  consumed  by  the  clergy 
with  fear  and  trembling,  and  with  great  carefulness5." 
Cardinal  Gregory  includes  the  passage  in  his  collection 
called  Poly  carpus  (c.  1124)6  and  Gratian  in  his  Decretum 
(c.  1151)7.  Gratian  repeats  the  title  of  Ivo  of  Chartres, 
"By  whom  the  Lord's  sacraments  are  to  be  handled." 
In  Gratian  it  is  included  in  the  official  Corpus  Juris 
Canonici  of  1572-85,  and  all  later  editions.  From  the 
different  summaries  it  is  plain  that  the  canonists  considered 
the  document  authoritative  as  a  whole  and  not  simply  on 
one  or  two  points,  and  clearly  it  was  regarded  as  something 
more  than  a  relic  of  bygone  times  of  no  force  for  the 
present.  Though  when  properly  interpreted  it  has  really 
nothing  to  do  with  the  question,  being  concerned  with  the 

1  P.L.  ax.  col.  1093-4. 

2  Hinschius,  Decreiales  pseudo  Isidorianae,  p.  46. 

3  P.L.  cxxxn.  col.  225-6.  *  P.L.  cxl.  col.  754. 
8  P.L.  clxi.  col.  1079,  165. 

•  P.L.  clxxxvii.  col.  1740,  n.  136. 

7  Pars  in.  De  Cons.  Dist.  II.  c.  23,  P.L.  clxxxvii.  col.  1740. 


in]  IN  THE  WEST  39 

disposal  of  an  accidental  surplus  and  not  directly  with  the 
reservation  of  the  sacrament  at  all,  as  a  matter  of  fact  it 
is  historically  the  ultimate  source  of  the  modern  rules  for 
the  reservation  of  the  consecrated  host  and  its  renewal. 

Not  only  was  what  was  left  over  from  the  communion 
consumed  in  the  sacristy,  but  this  was  also,  as  in  the  East, 
the  place  of  reservation.  In  the  Gelasian  Sacramentary 
(c.  700,  and  later)  in  the  mass  of  Maundy  Thursday  we  read : 

They  communicate  and  reserve  of  this  sacrifice  until  the 
morrow;  and  thence  let  them  communicate1. 

On  Good  Friday  we  are  told : 

The  prayers  above  written  being  finished,  the  deacons  go 
into  the  sacristy.  They  proceed  with  the  body  and  blood  of 
the  Lord  which  remained  the  day  before,  and  place  it  on  the 
altar2. 

There  would  appear  to  have  been  reservation  in  both 
kinds,  or  at  any  rate  this  was  probably  the  original 
meaning  of  the  rubric. 

The  Missale  Francorum  (c.  700)  mentions  the  reserva- 
tion of  the  hosts  in  the  sacristy  and  quotes  the  letter  of 
the  pseudo  Clement.  In  the  allocation  to  the  subdeacon 
we  read: 

The  oblations  which  come  to  the  altar  are  called  the  shew- 
bread.  Of  these  oblations  only  so  much  as  is  able  to  suffice  for 
the  people  ought  to  be  placed  on  the  altar,  that  there  be  no 
decay  in  the  sacristy3. 

These  instructions  are  repeated  a  number  of  times  in 
various  forms  for  use  at  ordination  at  Rome  and  elsewhere, 
and  are  to  be  found  in  the  Pontificals  of  Egbert  (f  766)  and 
Dunstan  (f  988),  and  other  English  books4.  In  the  early 
days  it  was  obviously  the  custom  in  England  as  in  other 

1  Wilson,  Gelasian  Sacramentary,  p.  72.  2  Wilson,  p.  77. 

3  Thomasius,  Opera,  vol.  VI.  p.  343. 

1  Martene,  vol.  II.  lib.  1.  cap.  viii.  Art.  xi.  Ord.  11.  iii.  iv.  xiv.  xvii. 
PP-  34.  38,  42>  70.  84. 


4o  IN  THE  WEST  [ch. 

countries,  to  reserve  the  sacrament  in  the  sacristy.  King 
Alfred  in  his  translation  of  Bede's  Ecclesiastical  History 
says  of  Gregory  the  Great : 

His  body  was  buried  before  the  housel  porch. 

The  housel  porch  is  clearly  the  place  where  the  sacra- 
ment is  reserved,  but  in  the  original  Latin  it  is  "secre- 
tarium,"  or  sacristy1. 

The  Leofric  Missal  (c.  1070)  prescribing  the  ceremonies 
of  Good  Friday  gives  a  version  of  the  directions  of  the 
Gelasian  Sacramentary,  and  the  same  are  found  in  nume- 
rous other  books.   We  read : 

The  deacons  go  into  the  sacristy  and  proceed  with  the  body 
of  the  Lord,  which  has  remained  from  the  previous  day,  but 
without  the  consecrated  wine,  and  place  it  upon  the  altar2. 

Evidently  the  reservation  in  both  kinds  is  no  longer 
allowed,  but  the  custom  is  clearly  known,  and  was  perhaps 
still  the  practice  in  some  places. 

Giraldus  Cambrensis  (f  1223)  in  his  celebrated  Gemma 
Ecclesiastica  gives  the  instructions  of  the  pseudo  Clement, 
adding  an  exception  of  the  hosts  for  the  dying.  We  note 
the  generally  acknowledged  authority  of  the  letter  in 
Britain  as  elsewhere.  He  says: 

Let  not  the  priest  presume  to  prepare  or  consecrate  more 
hosts  than  ought  to  suffice  for  the  people :  but  if  they  remain 
let  them  not  be  reserved  until  the  morrow,  except  a  few  for 
viaticum,  but  be  received  with  fear  by  the  clergy3. 

The  various  rules  for  the  renewal  of  the  reserved  sacra- 
ment are  to  be  traced  back  ultimately  to  the  letter  of  the 
pseudo  Clement.  This  is  stated  very  plainly  in  an  eleventh 
century  codex  of  the  Abbey  of  St  Martial  at  Limoges.  We 
read: 

1  Bede,  Hist.  Eccl.  n.  i,  Ed.  Ang.  Sax.  and  Latin,  Cambridge,  1614, 
p.  107. 

2  Warren,  Leo/tic  Missal,  p.  96. 

3  Girald.  Camb.  Gemma  Eccles.  1.  8,  Ed.  Brewer,  vol.  u.  p.  27. 


in]  IN  THE  WEST  41 

It  is  the  custom  at  Limoges  because  of  the  precept  of  Pope 
Clement  with  reference  to  caring  for  the  Lord's  body,  that  not 
only  in  the  monasteries,  but  also  in  all  the  churches  of  the 
primate  of  Limoges,  lest  through  lapse  of  time  any  decay  should 
be  discovered  in  the  fragments  of  the  Lord's  body,  that  the 
body  of  the  Lord  should  be  renewed  twelve  times  in  the  year, 
and  that  the  old  which  is  changed  should  not  be  consumed 
except  by  the  clergy1. 

In  the  thirteenth  century  statutes  of  the  abbey  of  St 
Victor  at  Paris  we  find  a  special  direction  with  regard  to 
the  disposal  of  the  remains  of  the  eucharist  after  the 
general  communion  at  Easter.   We  read : 

The  priors  and  claustrales  ought  to  observe  that  at  Easter 
in  communicating  the  people  they  use  caution  that  what  is  left 
over  of  the  sacrament  be  not  reserved  more  than  eight  days2. 

It  is  interesting  to  see  the  comment  of  the  canonist 
Lyndwood  in  his  Provinciate  (c.  1422)  on  the  directions  of 
the  letter  of  the  pseudo  Clement,  Tribus  enim  gradibus, 
which  he  quotes  from  Gratian,  and  its  bearing  on  the 
practice  of  reservation,  universal  in  his  day.   He  says : 

The  priest  will  always  have  the  eucharist  ready  for  the  sick 
(De  consec.  Dist.  II.  cap.  Presbyter).  Nor  does  cap.  Tribus  of 
the  same  distinction,  where  it  is  forbidden  to  reserve  surplus 
hosts  placed  on  the  altar,  prevent  it:  for  it  is  true  that  they 
ought  not  to  be  reserved  for  the  need  of  those  consecrating, 
but  for  the  need  of  the  dying3. 

St  Thomas  Aquinas  (f  1274)  had  written  to  much  the 
same  effect,  and  quoted  the  same  two  authorities  from 
Gratian,  the  letter  of  the  pseudo  Clement,  and  a  canon  of 
the  council  of  Worms  (Aix-la-Chapelle,  in  8094?).  He 
explains  the  epistle  not  as  forbidding  all  reservation  but  the 

1  Martene,  vol.  i.  lib.  i.  cap.  v.  Art.  in.  §  ix.  p.  252. 

2  Martene,  vol.  in.  lib.  iv.  App.   Ant.  Stat.  S.  Vict.  xir.  p.  292. 

3  Lib.  in.  Tit.  25.  De  custodia  eucharistiae ,  cap.  Dignissimum,  verb. 
Die  dominica,  Ed.  Oxford,  1679,  p.  248. 

4  Capit.  Reg.  Franc.  1.  p.  161,  in  Monnmenta  Germaniae  Historica. 


42  IN  THE  WEST  [ch. 

reservation  of  any  chance  surplus  left  over  by  accident  from 
the  communion,  an  interpretation  which  we  decided  was 
the  only  one  possible  in  view  both  of  the  wording  of  the 
letter  and  contemporary  practice.   We  read : 

ii.  Further  truth  ought  to  correspond  to  the  figure.  But 
with  regard  to  the  paschal  lamb,  which  was  a  figure  of  this 
sacrament,  it  is  commanded  that  nothing  of  it  should  remain 
until  the  morning.  It  is  unfitting  therefore  that  consecrated 
hosts  should  be  reserved,  and  not  immediately  consumed.... 
To  the  eleventh  objection  we  reply  that  the  truth  ought  to 
correspond  to  the  figure  so  far  as  this,  namely  that  no  part  of 
a  consecrated  host  from  which  the  priest  and  ministers,  or 
even  the  people  communicate,  ought  to  be  reserved  until  the 
morrow.  Wherefore  we  find  (De  consec.  Dist.  n.  cap.  Tribus 
gradibus)  Pope  Clement  I  at  the  beginning  of  his  second  epistle 
decreed  that  "so  many  hosts  be  offered  on  the  altar  as  ought 
to  suffice  for  the  people,  but  if  any  remain  let  them  not  be 
reserved  until  the  morrow."  Yet  because  this  sacrament  has 
to  be  consumed  daily,  but  the  paschal  lamb  was  not  consumed 
daily,  so  it  is  necessary  to  reserve  other  consecrated  hosts  for 
the  sick.  Wherefore  in  the  same  distinction  cap.  93  we  read, 
"Let  the  priest  have  the  eucharist  always  ready  so  that  when 
anyone  is  sick  he  may  communicate  him  immediately,  lest  he 
die  without  communion1." 

The  old  practice  of  burning  or  burying  the  remains  of 
the  eucharist  survived,  according  to  the  Penitentials,  when- 
ever the  sacramental  species  was  marred  by  neglect  of  any 
kind,  or  decayed.  In  the  Rule  of  St  Columban  (c.  600)  we 
read: 

Let  him  who  has  shown  negligence  towards  the  sacrifice  so 
that  a  worm  is  found  in  it,  even  though  it  be  whole,  burn  it  in 
fire  near  the  altar  and  put  away  the  ashes  underneath  the 
altar,  and  himself  do  penance  forty  days2. 

1  Sumtna,  Pars  in.  Quaes,  lxxxiii.  De  riiu  eucharistiae,  Art.  v. 
P.L.  iv.  (Second  Series),  col.  844,  848. 

2  P.L.  lxxx.  col.  222. 


in]  IN  THE  WEST  43 

In  the  Penitential  of  Theodore  (668-690)  we  read : 

Every  sacrifice  which  has  become  corrupt  through  the 
foulness  of  age  must  be  burned  in  fire1. 

In  the  Penitential  of  Egbert  (735-766)  we  read : 

Let  him  who  has  neglected  the  sacrifice  so  that  there  are 
worms  in  it,  and  it  has  lost  its  colour  and  taste,  do  penance 
for  twenty,  thirty  or  forty  days,  and  let  it  be  burned  in  fire, 
and  its  ashes  put  away  under  the  altar2. 

We  might  quote  likewise  from  many  other  penitentials 
containing  similar  rules  for  dealing  with  the  sacrament  in 
various  contingencies.  Like  provision  is  made,  we  may 
note,  in  the  penitentials  ascribed  to  Gregory  III  (731-741), 
the  Venerable  Bede  (f  735),  Halitgar,  Bishop  of  Cambrai 
(817-831),  Robert  of  St  Victor,  in  the  Canons  under 
Edgar  (f  975),  and  in  codices  belonging  to  the  monasteries 
of  Bobbio  and  Rheinau,  the  Colbertine  Collection  at  Paris 
and  the  library  of  St  Vito  of  Verdun3.  Such  directions  for 
burning  the  remains  of  the  eucharistic  species  in  certain 
cases  appear  in  the  mediaeval  missals,  as  those  of  Salisbury 
and  York,  and  they  are  still  found  in  the  modern  Roman 
missal  in  the  preliminary  rubrics. 

Our  examination  of  the  evidence  has  shown  that 
throughout  the  West,  and  also  in  England,  in  the  early 
days,  and  apparently  up  to  the  eleventh  century  in  some 
places,  in  accordance  with  the  directions  contained  in 
the  letter  of  the  pseudo  Clement  the  remains  of  the  con- 
secrated elements,  whether  for  reservation  or  not,  were 
taken  to  the  sacristy  to  be  disposed  of,  and  on  ordinary 
days  were  consumed  there,  usually  by  the  priests  or  other 
ministers,  but  sometimes  by  boys.  The  consumption  so 

1  Haddan  and  Stubbs,  Councils  and  Ecclesiastical  Documents,  vol.  in. 
p.  187. 

2  Haddan  and  Stubbs,  vol.  in.  p.  427. 

3  Martene,  vol.  1.  lib.  1.  cap.  v.  Art.  v.  pp.  255-7.  Thorpe,  Ancient 
Laws  and  Institutes  of  England,  11.  p.  252.  Gerbert,  Mon.  Vet.  Lit. 
Alemann.  vol.  11.  p.  23. 


44  IN  THE  WEST  [ch.  in 

long  as  it  took  place  in  the  sacristy  could  hardly  be  other- 
wise than  after  the  conclusion  of  mass,  and  according  to 
the  original  meaning  of  the  letter  of  the  pseudo  Clement 
not  till  the  next  day.  The  decrees  of  the  councils  of  Tours 
and  Rodomum  seem  to  suggest  that  in  the  ninth  century 
the  consumption  of  the  remains  took  place  in  the  church, 
but  this  may  not  be  intended :  and  the  ordination  address 
to  the  subdeacon  appears  to  assume  the  continuance  of 
the  ancient  custom.  The  probability  is  that,  contrary  to 
the  common  custom  of  the  East,  the  hosts  were  not  taken 
away  to  the  sacristy  until  the  service  was  completely  over, 
and  this  must  have  been  the  case  when  a  priest  celebrated 
without  assistant  ministers,  but  at  present  we  have  had 
no  direct  evidence.  We  shall  consider  the  point  later  in 
connection  with  the  portion  of  the  priest's  host  put  down 
on  the  altar  till  the  end  of  mass. 


CHAPTER  IV 
THE  SANCTA 

IT  will  be  of  value  for  our  enquiry  into  the  early  method 
of  dealing  with  the  remains  of  the  consecrated  elements 
after  communion  in  the  West  to  consider  the  exact  signifi- 
cance of  the  term  "  Sancta,"  and  the  ceremonies  connected 
with  it,  and  then  what  we  can  learn  on  a  kindred  subject, 
the  portion  of  the  priest's  host  which,  according  to  the 
custom  of  the  Roman  church  and  elsewhere,  was  put 
down  on  the  altar  after  the  fraction  to  remain  there  till 
the  end  of  mass. 

In  the  First  Roman  Ordo  (c.  770)  of  Mabillon,  ac- 
cording to  the  Colbertine  manuscript,  we  read: 

But  before  they  come  to  the  altar  the  deacons  put  off  their 
planets  *  in  the  presbytery,  and  the  district  subdeacon  receives 
them,  and  gives  them  to  the  acolytes  of  the  district  to  which 
the  deacons  belong,  and  then  two  acolytes  holding  the  pyxes 
with  the  Sancta  uncovered,  and  a  subdeacon  following  after 
them,  holding  his  hand  on  the  mouth  of  a  pyx,  shows  the 
Sancta  to  the  pontiff  or  the  deacon  who  precedes  him.  Then  the 
pontiff  or  deacon  with  bowed  head  salutes  the  Sancta,  and 
looks  to  see  if  there  be  more  than  is  necessary,  that  he  may 
order  it  to  be  placed  in  the  conditorium2' 3. 

Later  on  we  read : 

When  he  says,  Pax  Domini  sit  semper  vobiscum,  let  him  drop 
of  the  Sancta  into  the  chalice4. 

And  again  we  read : 

And  when  he  (the  pontiff)  has  communicated  let  him  put  of 
that  Sancta  which  he  has  bitten  into  the  chalice  in  the  hands 

1  I.e.  chasubles.  2  Perhaps  an  aumbry,  or  cupboard. 

3  Mabillon,  Mus.  Hal.  vol.  II.  p.  8.  4  Mabillon,  vol.  II.  p.  13. 


46  THE  SANCTA  [ch. 

of  the  archdeacon,  saying  Fiat  commixtio;  and  he  is  confirmed 
by  the  archdeacon1,2. 

From  these  extracts  we  gather  that  the  word  "  Sancta  "  is 
a  name  for  the  consecrated  elements  in  general,  and  its 
use  is  by  no  means  limited  to  the  particle  which  is  em- 
ployed for  what  is  sometimes  called  "the  ceremony  of  the 
Sancta";  and  it  is  the  same  in  the  slightly  differing  texts 
of  other  Or  dines.  The  term  is  used  for  the  whole  of  the 
reserved  sacramental  species  which  is  brought  in  by  the 
acolytes,  and  this  must  have  been  a  considerable  quantity, 
as  more  than  one  pyx  is  mentioned,  for  that  put  aside  in 
the  conditorium  as  well  as  for  that  placed  on  the  altar, 
and  also  for  the  newly  consecrated  host  from  which  the 
pope  makes  his  communion. 

We  may  illustrate  this  general  use  of  the  word  for  the 
sacramental  elements.  The  singular  form,  "Sanctum,"  is 
used  by  Tertullian3  and  also  by  Cyprian4,  while  the  Greek 
form  to  ayiov  is  suggested  by  the  use  of  Matt.  vii.  6,  of 
the  eucharist  in  the  Didache5.  In  an  ancient  missal  of  the 
church  of  Angers  we  find  the  words  "Sanctum  cum 
Sanctis"  used  at  the  commixture,  and  in  another  "Sancta 
cum  Sanctis,"  the  latter  being  found  also  in  a  Rheims 
missal  of  14916.  These  are  presumably  in  imitation  of  the 
Mozarabic  "Sancta  Sanctis"  at  the  same  point,  which  is 
a  Western  equivalent  of  to  ayia  roU  dyloa  in  the 
Eastern  liturgies.  Whatever  may  have  been  the  original 
intention  of  this  formula  it  is  clear  that  the  first  of  the 
times  the  adjective  is  used  it  refers  to  the  Holy  Sacrament. 
As  the  word  "Sancta"  appears  in  the  Roman  Ordines  the 
grammatical  construction  is  uncertain,  for  we  find  "cum 
Sanctis,"  "mittit  Sancta,"  "de  ipsa  Sancta"  in  the  First 

1  Communicated  with  the  sacrament  of  the  blood. 

2  Mabillon,  vol.  n.  p.  14. 

8  De  Sped.  25,  P.L.  1.  col.  657. 

«  De  Lapsis,  26,  P.L.  iv.  col.  486.  5  Didache,  ix.  5. 

6  Martene,  vol.  1.  lib.  1.  cap.  iv.  Art.  ix.  §  ii.  p.  151. 


iv]  THE  SANCTA  47 

Ordo  according  to  some  texts ;  but  in  the  Colbertine  manu- 
script the  first  two  run  "cum  Sancta,"  " mittit  de  Sancta1." 
We  must  now  return  to  a  consideration  of  the  precise 
significance  of  what  was  done  with  the  Sancta  during 
mass.  That  the  sacrament  consecrated  on  a  previous 
occasion  was  brought  to  the  altar  at  the  celebration  of 
mass  appears  also  from  other  authorities,  and  it  was  in 
no  sense  merely  a  Roman  custom.  Presumably  it  was  the 
whole  of  what  was  reserved.  Gregory  of  Tours  (f  594) 
says: 

The  passion  being  read  with  the  other  lessons  which  the 
priestly  rule  required,  the  time  for  offering  the  sacrifice 
drew  nigh,  and  the  deacon,  having  taken  the  tower  in  which 
the  mystery  of  the  Lord's  body  was  kept,  began  to  carry  it  to 
the  door,  but  when  he  had  entered  the  temple  that  he  might 
place  it  upon  the  altar  it  slipped  from  his  hand  and  was  carried 
into  the  air  and  so  came  to  the  altar,  the  hand  of  the  deacon 
being  quite  unable  to  overtake  it2. 

A  similar  account  is  found  in  the  description  of  the 
Gallican  mass  attributed  to  Germanus  of  Paris  (f  576) : 

But  now  the  church  in  sweet  tones  hymns  the  body  of  Christ 
as  it  comes  to  the  altar,  no  longer  with  trumpets  unrestrained 
but  with  spiritual  voices  singing  the  greatness  of  Christ.  And 
the  body  of  the  Lord  is  thus  brought  in  towers  because  the 
sepulchre  of  the  Lord  was  hewn  in  the  rock  in  the  form  of  a 
tower,  and  within  it  was  the  couch  on  which  the  Lord's  body 
rested,  and  from  which  He  rose  in  triumph,  the  King  of  glory3. 

The  word  "tower"  appears  to  be  the  common  name  for 
the  receptacle  for  the  reserved  sacrament,  not  merely  for 
the  vessel  in  which  it  was  brought  to  the  altar  for  use  at  a 
particular  ceremony.  We  find  numerous  allusions  to  it,  and 
there  is  a  form  for  blessing  one  in  the  Gallican  Sacrament- 

1  Mabillon,  vol.  n.  pp.  8,  13,  14. 

2  Mirac.  Lib.  I  de  Gloria  Martyr.  86,  P.L.  LXXI.  col.  781. 

3  De  Sono,  P.L.  lxxii.  col.  92-3. 


48  THE  SANCTA  [ch. 

ary1.  St  Remigius  of  Rheims  (f  533)  in  his  will  require^ 
a  tower  and  chalice  to  be  made2,  and  St  Aridius  in  the 
same  century  four  towers  and  four  chalices3.  Fortunatus 
sings  of  a  tower  as  bearing  the  sacred  body  of  the  Lamb4. 
Bishop  Lando  of  Rheims  (f  c.  645)  left  a  golden  tower  to 
his  cathedral5.  The  life  of  St  Didier  of  Cahors  (f  659) 
joins  chalices  and  towers  together  in  the  description  of 
church  ornaments6.  The  use  of  the  term  persisted  into  the 
seventeenth  century,  or  at  any  rate  the  vessel  for  the 
reservation  of  the  sacrament  was  sometimes  made  in  this 
shape  at  that  date,  as  at  the  monastery  of  Marmoutier  at 
Tours,  the  churches  of  St  Lawrence,  Rouen,  St  Benet, 
Paris,  at  Laon,  and  in  Bourges  cathedral7. 

According  to  Roman  custom  the  Sancta  brought  to  the 
altar  before  the  beginning  of  mass  would  seem  to  have  been 
reserved  from  a  previous  papal  mass.  To  grasp  the  full 
meaning  of  the  observance  it  will  be  necessary  to  enquire 
also  into  the  kindred  customs  in  connection  with  the 
Fermentum  or  Leaven,  the  use  of  which  appears  to  have 
been  a  substitute  for  the  earlier  practice  of  concelebration, 
and  a  sign  of  unity.  The  earliest  clear  mention  of  the 
Fermentum  is  to  be  found  in  the  life  of  Pope  Miltiades 
(3 1 1-3 14)  as  given  in  the  Liber  Pontificalis,  and  also  in 
similar  words  in  certain  ancient  catalogues  of  the  Roman 
bishops,  which  for  the  earlier  lives  are  the  basis  of  it : 

He  caused  that  the  consecrated  oblations  from  that  day 
(Sunday)  should  be  sent  throughout  the  churches  from  the  con- 
secration of  the  bishop, — which  betokens  the  Fermentum8. 

1  Neale  and  Forbes,  Ancient  Liturgies  of  the  Gallican  Church,  p.  362. 

2  P.L.  lxv.  col.  971.  3  P.L.  lxxi.  col.  1 147. 
4  Miscell.  in.  Carmen  25,  P.L.  lxxxviii.  col.  144. 

6  P.L.  lxv.  col.  971. 

6  Krusch,  Mon.  Germ.  Hist.,  Vitae  iv.  Vita  15,  p.  576. 

'  Martene,  vol.  1.  lib.  1.  cap.  v.  Art.  iii.  §  vi.  p.  252.  Thiers,  Traite  d. 
I'Exposition  du  St.  Sacrement  de  I'Autel,  1677,  pp.  39-42.  Cf.  Freestone, 
Sacrament  Reserved,  p.  218;  also  for  references  above. 

8  Duchesne,  Lib.  Pont.  vol.  I.  p.  168.  Cf.  p.  74,  and  Acta  Sanctorum , 
April,  vol.  1.  p.  xxix. 


iv]  THE  SANCTA  49 

Later  in  the  same  century  Siricius  (384-399),  so  the 
same  authorities  assert,  made  it  a  necessary  condition  to 
receive  the  Fermentum  before  a  priest  could  celebrate  at 
all.   We  read : 

Siricius... ordered  that  no  presbyter  should  celebrate  mass 
throughout  the  whole  week  unless  he  should  receive  the 
element  consecrated  by  the  bishop  of  the  appointed  place,  a 
token  which  is  called  the  Fermentum1. 

The  well-known  letter  to  Decentius,  Bishop  of  Gubbio, 
attributed  to  Innocent  I  (401-417)  likewise  speaks  of  a 
weekly  distribution  of  the  Fermentum.   He  says : 

But  about  the  Fermentum,  which  on  the  Lord's  day  we 
send  to  all  the  titular  churches,  you  wished  to  consult  us 
unnecessarily,  since  all  your  churches  are  situated  within  the 
city,  and  the  presbyters  of  these,  because  on  that  day  on 
account  of  the  people  entrusted  to  them,  they  cannot  assemble 
with  us,  for  that  reason  receive  the  Fermentum  consecrated 
by  us  at  the  hands  of  acolytes,  that  especially  on  that  day  they 
may  not  judge  themselves  separated  from  our  communion: 
but  I  do  not  think  it  ought  to  be  done  in  the  country  districts, 
because  the  sacraments  must  not  be  carried  far,  nor  do  we 
intend  it  for  the  presbyters  appointed  to  the  different  ceme- 
teries, for  they  have  the  right  and  licence  to  consecrate  them 2. 

The  use  of  the  Fermentum  was  not  limited  to  the 
station  masses,  for  no  mass  could  be  said  without  it 
throughout  the  week,  and  it  was  the  sign  of  the  Pope's 
permission  to  celebrate.  In  the  ancient  gloss  on  the  letter 
to  Decentius  found  in  a  codex  in  the  library  of  St  Emmeram 
at  Ratisbon,  the  Fermentum  was  only  distributed  five 
times  in  the  year,  but  no  mass  might  be  said  by  a  priest  in 
the  station  churches  without  it.    It  runs: 

With  regard  to  what  is  called  the  Fermentum  it  is  the  cus- 
tom among  the  Romans  that  from  the  mass  which  is  sung  on 

1  Duchesne,  1.  p.  216.  Cf.  p.  86  and  Ada  Sand.  April,  vol.  1.  p.  xxxii. 

2  P.L.  xx.  col.  556-7. 

l.  e.  4 


50  THE  SANCTA  [ch. 

Maundy  Thursday,  Holy  Saturday,  Easter  Day,  Pentecost  and 
the  Nativity  of  our  Lord  there  should  be  reserved  (of  the 
Sancta)  throughout  the  whole  year,  and  wherever  in  the  stations 
the  pope  himself  is  not  present  at  the  mass,  it  is  put  into  the 
chalice  from  that  mass  when  he  says  Pax  Domini.  And  this  is 
called  the  Fermentum.  And  on  Holy  Saturday  no  priest  in 
the  baptismal  churches  communicates  anybody  until  he  has 
put  into  the  chalice  of  that  Sancta  which  the  pope  has  offered1. 

We  note  that  the  Fermentum  is  taken  from  the  Sancta, 
the  common  name  for  the  eucharistic  elements,  con- 
secrated by  the  pope  on  the  five  occasions.  A  description 
of  the  ceremony  is  to  be  found  in  the  First  Ordo,  though 
it  is  not  stated  that  the  Fermentum  is  taken  from  the 
Sancta: 

When  Pax  Domini  ought  to  be  said  a  particle  of  the  Fer- 
mentum which  was  consecrated  by  the  Apostolicus  is  brought 
by  the  subdeacon  oblationer  and  given  to  the  archdeacon,  and 
he  offers  it  to  the  bishop,  and  he  makes  the  sign  of  the  cross 
with  it  thrice,  and  saying  Pax  Domini  puts  it  into  the  chalice.... 
The  like  is  done  also  by  a  presbyter  when  he  says  mass  in  a 
station.... Bishops  who  preside  over  cities  do  all  things  exactly 
as  the  chief  pontiff2. 

In  the  Gallicanized  Ordo  of  St  Amand  the  word  Fer- 
mentum is  not  used,  but  simply  the  more  general  term 
Sancta.  There  is  a  full  description  of  the  observance  on 
Easter  Eve : 

On  that  night  none  of  the  presbyter  cardinals  stand  there, 
but  each  says  mass  at  his  own  title,  and  has  leave  to  sit  on  the 
throne  and  say  Gloria  in  excelsis.  And  each  presbyter  sends 
a  mansionary 3  from  his  title  to  the  church  of  the  Saviour,  and 
they  wait  there  until  the  Sancta  is  broken,  having  corporals 
with  them.  And  the  subdeacon  oblationer  comes  and  gives  to 

1  Mabillon,  Iter  German.  Descript.  pp.  65-66.  Cf.  Mabillon,  vol.  II. 
pp.  xxxviii,  xxxix. 

*  Mabillon,  vol.  II.  pp.  16-7. 

3  Sacristan  or  sexton,  a  minor  church  official. 


iv]  THE  SANCTA  51 

them  of  the  Sancta  which  the  pontiff  has  consecrated,  and 
they  receive  it  in  the  corporals  and  each  returns  to  his  title, 
and  gives  the  Sancta  to  the  priest.  And  with  it  he  makes  a 
cross  over  the  chalice,  and  puts  it  in  it,  and  says,  Dominus 
vobiscum,  and  all  communicate1. 

In  the  description  of  mass  as  said  by  a  bishop  or  priest 
on  an  ordinary  day  the  Ordo  of  St  Amand  tells  us  how  the 
Fermentum,  which  here  too  is  called  simply  the  Sancta, 
was  used.   We  read : 

And  when  he  says  Pax  Domini  the  subdeacon  holds  in  a 
corporal  at  the  corner  of  the  altar  some  of  the  Sancta  which 
the  pontiff  has  consecrated,  and  the  deacon  takes  it  and  gives 
it  to  the  bishop  or  priest,  and  then  making  a  cross  over  the 
chalice  he  says  Pax  Domini2. 

The  Fermentum  was  reserved  from  the  mass  of  Maundy 
Thursday,  but  as  there  was  no  celebration  of  the  eucharist 
from  that  time  until  Easter  Eve,  when  it  was  again  dis- 
tributed, the  majority  of  it  would  be  used  to  add  to  the 
stock  of  the  Sancta,  from  which  communion  was  given 
on  Good  Friday,  only  part  of  what  was  distributed  on 
Maundy  Thursday  being  used  on  that  day,  the  rest  being 
reserved  as  on  other  occasions.  According  to  the  Ein- 
siedeln  Ordo  the  communion  on  Good  Friday  is  the  reason 
for  the  distribution  of  the  Sancta  on  Maundy  Thursday : 

And  when  the  whole  oblation  has  been  broken  the  Apostoli- 
cus  communicates  alone.  And  he  likewise  blesses  the  chrism 
and  commands  that  there  be  a  distribution  of  it  to  the  titular 
and  other  churches,  either  by  the  oblationer  of  the  year,  or 
his  assistant.  Similarly  also  of  the  holy  sacrifice,  which  they 
reserve  for  the  Friday3. 

In  the  description  of  the  Good  Friday  ceremonies  we 
read: 

1  Duchesne,  Christian  Worship  (Eng.  trans.),  1904,  pp.  470-1. 

2  Duchesne,  C.W.  p.  464. 

3  Duchesne,  C.W.  pp.  481-2. 

4—2 


52  THE  SANCTA  [ch. 

And  they  go  again  to  the  Lateran  singing  Beati  immaculati. 
But  the  Apostolicus  does  not  communicate  there,  nor  the 
deacons.  And  whoever  wishes  to  communicate  communicates 
from  the  pyxes  of  the  sacrifice  which  was  reserved  from  Thurs- 
day :  and  anyone  who  does  not  wish  to  communicate  there  goes 
to  the  other  churches  of  Rome,  or  to  the  titles,  and  communi- 
cates1. 

Once  again,  as  in  the  First  Ordo,  we  hear  of  the  pyxes 
(capsae)  for  the  reservation  of  the  sacrament,  which  pre- 
sumably was  distributed  in  considerable  quantities  on 
Maundy  Thursday  to  the  various  churches. 

The  practice  described  in  the  Einsiedeln  Ordo  seems  to 
be  identical  with  that  with  which  the  ritualist  Amalarius 
of  Metz  became  familiar  on  his  visit  to  Rome  in  832,  when 
he  learned  that  the  Ordo  with  which  he  was  acquainted, 
akin  to  Or  dines  I  and  77  it  would  seem,  was  no  longer  a 
description  of  current  practice.  In  Ordo  I  we  read  at  the 
end  of  the  description  of  the  Maundy  Thursday  cere- 
monies : 

Having  washed  his  hands  the  pontiff  comes  to  the  altar  and 
all  the  people  communicate  in  their  order,  and  he  reserves  of 
the  Sancta  for  the  morrow2. 

Misled  by  some  such  order  as  this  Amalarius  had 
written : 

The  heavenly  bread,  that  is,  the  body  of  the  Lord,  is  reserved 
from  the  Thursday  until  Good  Friday.... On  Good  Friday  the 
body  of  the  Lord  is  not  consecrated.  It  is  necessary  that  those 
who  have  a  wish  to  communicate  should  have  the  sacrifice 
from  the  previous  day3. 

When  Amalarius  arrived  in  Rome  he  learned  that  this 
was  no  longer  the  custom,  but  that  the  actual  practice 
was  in  agreement,  not  with  Ordo  I ,  but  with  what  we 

found  in  the  Einsiedeln  Ordo.   He  says: 

* 

1  Duchesne,  C.W.  p.  483.  2  Mabillon,  vol.  II.  p.  21. 

3  De  Eccles.  Officiis,  lib.  I.  12.   Hittorp,  col.  330. 


iv]  THE  SANCTA  53 

In  the  above-mentioned  book  I  found  it  written  that  after 
the  salutation  of  the  cross  two  priests  should  bring  the  body 
of  the  Lord  which  was  reserved  the  previous  day,  and  a 
chalice  with  wine  not  consecrated  that  it  may  be  consecrated 
then,  and  the  people  communicate  from  it.  Concerning  which 
statement  I  asked  the  Roman  archdeacon  and  he  replied, 
"  In  that  station  where  the  Apostolicus  salutes  the  cross  nobody 
communicates1." 

We  may  note  that  the  pseudo  Alcuin  in  his  comments 
on  the  matter,  evidently  based  on  the  words  of  Amalarius, 
plainly  identifies  the  Sancta  with  "the  body  of  the  Lord." 
He  says: 

With  reference  to  the  same  day  (Maundy  Thursday)  we  read 
in  the  Ordines  that  there  should  be  reserved  of  the  body  of  the 
Lord  for  communion  on  the  morrow. ...And  because  on  Good 
Friday  the  body  of  the  Lord  is  not  consecrated  it  is  necessary 
that  those  who  have  a  wish  to  communicate  should  have  the 
sacrifice  from  the  previous  day;  yet  the  Romans  do  not  do 
this2. 

The  Or  do  of  St  Amand  describes  a  practice  similar  to 
that  of  the  Einsiedeln  Ordo  except  that  the  Sancta  remains 
on  the  altar  until  the  end  of  the  service.  We  read  in  the 
account  of  Maundy  Thursday : 

Mass  being  finished,  the  deacon  says,  lie  missa  est.  And  the 
Sancta  are  reserved  until  the  morrow3. 

Yet  there  is  no  communion  at  the  station,  but  only  at 
the  titular  churches.   After  the  solemn  prayers  we  read: 

Then  the  presbyters  return  to  their  titles,  and  at  the  ninth  hour 
they  repeat  the  lessons  and  responsories,  the  gospel  and  also 
the  solemn  prayers,  and  adore  the  cross,  and  all  communicate4. 

It  seems  plain  from  the  evidence  that  the  term  Sancta 
was  used  of  the  Holy  Sacrament  generally,  though  at 

1  De  Eccles.  Officiis,  lib.  i.  15.    Hittorp,  col.  340. 

2  De  Divinis  Officiis.   Hittorp,  col.  249. 

3  Duchesne,  C.W.  p.  467.  *  Duchesne,  C.W.  p.  468. 


54  THE  SANCTA  [ch. 

Rome  the  word  is  not  found  apparently  except  for  what 
is  consecrated  by  the  pope,  and  the  Sancta  of  which 
we  hear  is  the  sacrament  which  had  been  distributed  to 
the  titular  churches  from  a  papal  mass.  The  Sancta 
brought  to  the  pope  on  his  approach  to  the  altar  at  the 
stational  church,  part  being  put  into  the  chalice  at  Pax 
Domini,  does  not  really  differ  from  what  on  other  occasions 
was  called  the  Fermentum,  which  was  used  in  exactly  the 
same  manner  when  another  celebrated,  both  alike  being 
part  of  the  sacred  elements  which  had  been  consecrated 
by  the  pope,  and  were  reserved  in  the  different  churches 
of  Rome  for  use  at  the  various  masses  held  there  through- 
out the  year,  whether  the  pope  or  another  was  celebrant, 
and  on  Good  Friday  for  the  communion  of  the  faithful. 

In  the  later  Gallican  Appendix  to  the  First  Ordo  (ninth 
century?),  as  in  the  Ordo  itself,  the  word  Sancta  is  used  of 
the  consecrated  hosts  generally,  and  quite  apart  from  any 
particular  ceremony  of  putting  it  into  the  chalice.  In  the 
description  of  the  Maundy  Thursday  service,  much  as  in 
the  Ordo  itself,  we  read: 

Mass  being  finished,  they  communicate  in  the  appointed 
order,  and  they  reserve  of  the  Sancta  for  the  morrow  according 
to  custom1. 

The  order  for  Good  Friday  is  an  elaboration  of  what 
we  noticed  in  the  Gelasian  Sacramentary,  and  is  the  same 
both  in  Ordo  I  and  in  the  Appendix  to  it;  the  Sancta  is 
evidently  the  whole  of  the  reserved  sacrament.   We  read: 

The  two  former  priests  as  soon  as  they  have  saluted  (the 
pontiff)  enter  the  sacristy,  or  wherever  the  body  of  the  Lord 
which  remained  from  the  previous  day  had  been  placed,  and 
put  it  on  a  paten;  and  let  one  subdeacon  hold  before  them  a 
chalice  with  wine  not  consecrated  and  another  a  paten  with 
the  body  of  the  Lord;  and  one  priest  takes  the  paten  and 
another  the  chalice  which  they  are  holding,  and  they  put  them 

1  Mabillon,  vol.  II.  p.  32. 


iv]  THE  SANCTA  55 

down  on  the  bare  altar.... The  pontiff  descends  to  the  altar 
and  says,  Or  emus.  Praeceptis  salutaribus....  When  they  have 
said  Amen  he  takes  of  the  Sancta  and  puts  it  into  the  chalice, 
saying  nothing,  and  all  communicate  in  silence1. 

We  may  note  other  passages  from  the  Ordo  of  St  Amand 
illustrating  the  use  of  the  word  Sancta: 

And  when  they  have  made  the  fraction  the  archdeacon  takes 
the  holy  chalice  from  the  subdeacon,  and  another  deacon  the 
paten  from  the  acolyte,  and  they  come  before  the  pontiff.  The 
pontiff  takes  the  Sancta  from  the  paten,  bites  a  piece  from 
the  particle,  and  with  it  makes  a  cross  over  the  chalice,  saying 
secretly  Fiat  commixtio  and  the  rest.  Then  the  pontiff  is 
confirmed,  the  chalice  being  held  by  the  archdeacon.  Then 
the  bishops  or  priests,  take  the  Sancta  from  the  hand  of  the 
pontiff,  and  go  to  the  left  part  of  the  altar,  and  place  their 
hands  with  the  Sancta  on  the  altar,  and  so  communicate.... 
Then  he  (the  archdeacon)  gives  the  chalice  to  the  bishop  who 
communicated  first,  and  goes  to  the  pontiff,  and  receives  the 
Sancta  from  his  hand,  and  likewise  the  other  deacons.  And 
they  go  to  the  right  part  of  the  altar  and  communicate.... Then 
the  archdeacon  takes  the  chalice  from  the  bishop,  and  the 
subdeacon  comes  holding  the  smaller  strainer  in  his  hand,  and 
takes  out  the  Sancta  from  the  chalice,  and  puts  it  into  the 
former  cup  from  which  the  archdeacon  will  communicate  the 
people2. 

And  a  presbyter  receives  it  from  his  hand,  and  makes  a  cross 
with  the  Sancta  over  the  cup  and  puts  it  within3. 

On  Maundy  Thursday  we  are  told : 

And  he  (the  pontiff)  goes  to  his  throne,  and  the  priests,  and 
deacons  also,  break  the  Sancta,  and  meanwhile  Agnus  Dei  is 
sung.  Then  the  pontiff  communicates  alone,  and  the  deacon 
covers  both  the  Sancta  and  the  chalice  on  the  altar  with  a 
corporal.... And  the  Sancta  are  reserved  until  the  morrow4. 

1  Mabillon,  vol.  n.  pp.  23,  35.  2  Duchesne,  C.W.  pp.  461-2. 

3  Duchesne,  C.W.  p.  463.  *  Duchesne,  C.W.  pp.  466-7. 


56  THE  SANCTA  [ch. 

In  Ordo  II,  a  Carolingian  version  of  Ordo  I,  we 
note  a  change  in  practice  from  what  is  described  in  the 
original  text,  and  the  Sancta  is  already  on  the  altar  when 
the  pope  appears: 

And  the  pontiff  passes  to  the  top  of  the  choir,  and  on  the 
higher  step,  bowing  his  head  to  the  altar,  first  adores  the 
Sancta1. 

The  explanation  is  apparently  that  the  direction  has 
been  modified  so  as  to  suit  the  Gallican  method  of  reserva- 
tion over  the  altar.  Of  reservation  on  or  over  the  altar 
we  have  a  number  of  examples  in  Gallican  circles  at  this 
period.  The  Synodical  Admonition  attributed  to  Leo  IV 
(847-55),  and  incorporated  in  many  tenth  century  docu- 
ments makes  an  order  to  this  effect : 

Let  nothing  be  placed  upon  the  altar  except  the  chests  and 
relics,  or  perhaps  the  four  gospels  and  a  pyx,  with  the  body  of 
the  Lord  for  the  viaticum  of  the  sick2. 

Regino  of  Priim  (f  915)  in  visitation  articles  based  on 
this  Admonition  mentions  it  twice : 

Enquiry  should  be  made  if  the  pyx  is  always  over  the  altar 
with  the  sacred  oblation  for  the  viaticum  of  the  sick3. 

Every  priest  should  have  a  pyx  or  vessel  meet  for  so  great  a 
sacrament,  where  the  Lord's  body  may  be  carefully  stored  for 
the  viaticum  of  those  who  depart  from  this  world... and  it 
should  always  be  over  the  altar  well  fastened  on  account  of 
mice  and  evil  men4. 

The  reference  seems  to  be  to  a  vessel  standing  on  the 
altar,  rather  than  a  receptacle  over  it  and  separate  from 
it,  as  an  aumbry. 

In  the  Ecloga  ascribed  to  Amalarius,  really  a  Gallican 
Ordo,  we  likewise  note  the  Sancta  on  or  over  the  altar : 

The  bishop  coming  to  the  altar  first  adores  the  Sancta,  and 

afterwards  gives  the  Pax  to  the  priests  and  deacons. ...After 

1  Mabillon,  vol.  11.  p.  43.  *  P.L. cxxxn.  col.  456. 

8  Notitiae,  i.  9,  P.L.  cxxxu.  col.  187. 
4  Notitiae,  1.  70,  P.L.  cxxxu.  col.  205-6. 


iv]  THE  SANCTA  57 

the  bishop  has  adored  the  Sancta  he  goes  to  the  right  of  the 
altar1. 

In  Ordo  II  the  Sancta  is  used  in  a  similar  manner  to 
what  we  noticed  in  Ordo  I  as  a  link  between  mass  and 
mass: 

(After  the  pontifical  benedictions  are  finished,  as  is  the 
custom  in  these  parts)  when  he  says  Pax  Domini  he  puts  some 
of  the  Sancta,  which  had  been  offered,  into  the  chalice2. 

The  words  in  brackets  are  found  only  in  certain  manu- 
scripts. Their  Gallican  origin  is  evident,  but  they  afford 
valuable  testimony  to  the  widespread  use  of  the  Ordo. 

In  Mabillon's  Ordo  IV,  which  is  the  conclusion  of  the 
Ecloga  of  Amalarius3,  we  find  the  Sancta  no  longer  used 
to  link  together  consecutive  masses,  but  apparently  only 
to  join  the  priest's  mass  with  the  pope's,  as  was  the 
purpose  of  the  Fermentum.   We  read : 

Then  he  (the  pope)  says  Pax  Domini.  He  does  not  put  any 
of  the  Sancta  into  the  chalice  as  is  the  custom  with  other 
priests.  When  he  breaks  the  host  he  says  Agnus  Dei,  and  the 
fraction  being  performed,  when  the  Apostolic  Lord  communi- 
cates he  bites  off  a  piece  for  himself  and  puts  the  rest  into  the 
chalice,  making  a  cross  with  it  thrice  over  the  chalice,  saying 
nothing.  And  he  is  confirmed  from  the  chalice  which  the 
archdeacon  holds4. 

Amalarius  comments  on  the  difference  of  custom  with 
regard  to  the  commixture : 

I  notice  that  by  different  people  the  dropping  of  the  bread 
into  the  wine  is  variously  performed,  for  some  first  drop  of  the 
Sancta  into  the  chalice,  and  afterwards  say  Pax  Domini,  while 
others  postpone  the  putting  of  it  until  the  Pax  is  finished  and 
the  fraction  as  well5. 

This  difference  of  practice  at  an  episcopal  mass  sur- 
vived in  many  places  even  when  the  custom  of  using  the 

1  Mabillon,  vol.  II.  pp.  550-1.  2  Mabillon,  vol.  n.  p.  49. 

3  Mabillon,  vol.  11.  p.  560.  *  Mabillon,  vol.  II.  p.  62. 

5  De  Eccles.  Officiis,  lib.  in.  31.    Hittorp,  col.  432. 


58  THE  SANCTA  [ch. 

Sancta  from  a  previous  mass  had  died  out.  We  read 
in  the  eleventh  century  mass  of  Flacius  Illyricus,  and 
similarly  in  various  other  Gallican  documents,  as,  for 
example,  codices  belonging  to  the  church  of  Verdun,  and 
the  monastery  of  St  Gregory  at  Basle : 

Let  not  the  bishop  put  part  of  the  obley  into  the  chalice  as 
priests  are  wont  to  do,  but  wait  until,  the  benediction  being 
finished,  he  ought  to  communicate,  and  then  taking  a  piece 
which  he  had  broken  off  before,  and  holding  it  over  the  chalice 
let  him  drop  it  in  saying  Sacri  sanguinis  commixtio1. 

Durandus,  Bishop  of  Mende  (f  1296),  bears  witness  to 
the  divergence  of  custom  at  the  pope's  mass.  He  writes 
in  his  well-known  Rationale : 

The  chief  pontiff  does  not  let  the  particle  of  the  host  drop 
into  the  chalice  immediately,  but  after  making  the  sign  of  the 
cross  thrice  puts  it  down  on  the  paten,  and  after  the  kiss  of 
peace  goes  up  to  his  throne  and  sits  down  there.  In  the  sight 
of  all  he  takes  the  larger  portion  of  the  obley  from  the  paten 
which  the  subdeacon  had  brought  from  the  altar,  and  dividing 
it  with  his  teeth,  consumes  one  particle  of  it,  and  puts  the  other 
into  the  chalice,  and  drinks  of  the  blood  with  a  reed2. 

The  two  different  practices  clearly  arose  from  the  fact 
that  at  Rome  a  portion  of  the  consecrated  host  was  put 
into  the  chalice  at  two  points  of  the  service,  as  we  noticed 
in  the  directions  given  in  Ordo  I,  the  first  being  a  particle 
of  the  Sancta  reserved  from  a  previous  day,  and  the 
second  a  piece  of  the  host  from  which  the  pope  com- 
municated. Similar  directions  are  repeated  in  Ordincs  II 
and  777.  Amalarius  noted  the  double  immission  pre- 
scribed in  the  Roman  Ordo  he  knew,  though  apparently 
without  realising  that  on  the  first  occasion  the  presancti- 
fied  species  was  used.   Commenting  on  the  place  where  it 

1  Martene,  vol.  I.  lib.  1.  cap.  iv.  Art.  xn.  Ordo  IV.  p.  185.  Cf.  Ordo 
XV.  p.  213,  Ordo  XVI.  p.  216,  etc. 

2  Durandus,  Rationale  Div.  Off.  lib.  iv.  De  Commumone  Sacerdotis, 
i.  lxxvii. 


iv]  THE  SANCTA  59 

says  that  the  pope  puts  the  remainder  of  the  host  which 
he  has  bitten  into  the  chalice,  he  wrote: 

If  this  is  so  done  in  the  Roman  church  it  is  possible  to  learn 
from  them  what  the  putting  of  bread  twice  into  the  chalice 
may  mean,  for  nothing  which  is  done  in  this  service  according 
to  the  order  of  the  fathers  is  void  of  significance1. 

The  use  of  the  word  Sancta  as  a  general  name  for  the 
consecrated  elements,  and  particularly  for  the  reserved 
sacrament,  continued  for  centuries. 

In  the  Common  Roman  Ordo  of  Hittorp,  belonging 
perhaps  to  the  eleventh  century,  after  the  account  of  the 
blessing  of  the  oils  on  Maundy  Thursday  we  read: 

Then  let  the  pontiff  wash  his  hands  and  the  deacon  go  to 
the  altar  and  uncover  the  Sancta.  And  let  the  pontiff  coming 
to  the  altar  divide  the  obleys  for  the  fraction,  and  let  all  the 
people  communicate  in  order2. 

In  the  description  of  the  Good  Friday  ceremonies  we 
are  told  after  the  embolismus  at  the  conclusion  of  the 
Lord's  prayer : 

And  when  they  have  said  Amen  he  takes  some  of  the  Sancta, 
and  puts  it  into  the  chalice,  saying  nothing3. 

In  the  pontificals  of  Egbert  of  York  (f  766),  and  Tirpinus, 
Archbishop  of  Rheims,  which  survive  in  early  tenth  cen- 
tury manuscripts,  we  have  a  reference  to  a  use  of  the 
Sancta  similar  to  that  at  Rome.    We  read: 

On  Maundy  Thursday  mass  is  celebrated  at  the  Lateran  at 
the  sixth  hour.  The  pontiff  begins  by  saying  Oremus  and 
Deus  a  quo.  Then  the  Sancta  are  placed  on  the  altar4. 

In  St  Gall  MS.  No.  1394,  which  is  an  Irish  fragment  of 
the  eighth  or  ninth  century,  we  read : 

Holding  the  Sancta  in  his  hands  he  signs  the  chalice  with 

1  De  Eccles.  Officiis,  lib.  in.  31.    Hittorp,  col.  433. 

2  Hittorp,  col.  67.  3  Hittorp,  col.  75. 
4  Martene,  vol.  111.  lib.  iv.  cap.  xxii.  p.  101. 


6o  THE  SANCTA  [ch. 

the  cross  and  then  the  Pax  is  given.  And  the  priest  says  Pax 
el  caritas  Domini,  and  drops  the  Sancta  into  the  chalice,  and 
the  people  give  the  Pax  one  to  another  and  communicate1. 

The  Sancta  is  here  evidently  the  newly  consecrated  host, 
not  part  of  the  sacrament  reserved  from  a  previous  occa- 
sion. 

The  directions  given  in  a  tenth  century  Ordo  of  the 
monastery  of  Corbie  about  what  is  to  be  done  on  Maundy 
Thursday  are  particularly  noticeable,  and  we  shall  have 
to  refer  to  them  again.   We  read : 

But  when  the  priest  has  broken  the  Sancta  let  him  put  one 
portion  into  the  chalice,  and  communicate  from  another,  but 
the  third  let  him  put  down  on  the  altar.  And  let  him  be  con- 
firmed by  the  deacon  from  the  chalice,  but  only  on  this  day. 
After  he  has  confirmed  the  priest  let  the  deacon  place  the 
chalice  on  the  altar,  and  let  him  take  the  larger  paten  and  put 
on  it  whole  hosts  of  the  Sancta  and  place  it  on  the  left  side  near 
the  chalice2. 

On  Good  Friday  the  directions  are  almost  the  same  as 
those  of  Hittorp's  Common  Roman  Ordo,  the  fact  that  the 
two  Ordines  have  a  common  source  coming  out  more 
clearly  here  than  in  the  account  of  the  Maundy  Thursday 
service.   We  read: 

When  they  have  said  Amen,  let  him  take  of  the  Sancta  and 
put  it  into  the  chalice  saying  nothing,  and  all  communicate 
in  silence3. 

In  the  twelfth  century  customs  of  the  abbey  of  St 
Benignus  at  Dijon  we  read  similarly  on  Good  Friday: 

The  priest  follows  and  says  with  a  loud  voice  Praeceptis 
salutaribus  with  the  Lord's  Prayer,  and  the  collect  following, 
Libera  nos.  And  when  he  has  said,  Per  omnia  saecida  saeculorum, 
he  takes  of  the  Sancta  and  puts  it  into  the  chalice.... Then  the 

1  Warren,  The  Liturgy  and  Ritual  of  the  Celtic  Church,  p.  177. 
%  Martene,  vol.  iv.  lib.  in.  cap.  xiii.  §  xliii.  p.  128. 
3  Martene,  vol.  iv.  lib.  iti.  cap.  xiv.  §  xlii.  p.  139. 


iv]  THE  SANCTA  61 

priest  communicates  first  from  the  Sancta  and  afterwards 
distributes  to  all  in  order1. 

A  tenth  or  eleventh  century  Ordo  from  the  Imperial 
Library  of  Vienna  after  the  blessing  of  the  oils  reads  as 
in  the  Common  Roman  Ordo : 

Then  let  the  pontiff  wash  his  hands,  and  the  deacons  go  to 
the  altar  and  uncover  the  Sancta. 

At  the  end  of  the  service  there  is  the  usual  direction : 

And  they  reserve  of  the  Sancta  until  the  morrow2. 

In  a  twelfth  century  missal  of  the  bishop  of  Riva,  and 
in  a  fourteenth  century  pontifical  of  Aries,  we  get  almost 
identical  directions: 

Then  let  the  priest  or  bishop  communicate  alone,  and  the 
deacon  covers  the  Sancta  on  the  altar  with  a  linen  cloth.... 
Afterwards  let  the  priest  wash  his  hands  and  the  deacon  go 
to  the  altar  and  uncover  the  Sancta :  and  let  the  priest  come  to 
the  altar  and  divide  the  obleys  for  the  fraction,  and  let  all  the 
people  communicate  in  order3. 

Similar  words  are  found  in  many  descriptions  of  the 
Maundy  Thursday  service.  At  Beauvais  in  the  eleventh 
century,  at  Besancon,  and  the  monastery  of  St  Germanus 
in  the  twelfth,  and  in  the  Ordo  of  Bishop  Fulco  of  Angers 
in  the  fourteenth,  we  find  "Let  the  deacons  go  to  the 
altar  and  uncover  the  Sancta4." 

The  order  of  the  Roman  Ordines,  "Let  the  Sancta  be 
reserved  until  the  morrow,"  appears  in  a  tenth  century 
pontifical  of  Sens5,  and  a  twelfth  century  Ordo  from  the 
Imperial  Library  of  Vienna6,  and  elsewhere. 

1  Martene,  vol.  iv.  pp.  139-40. 

2  Gerbert,  Monumenta  Vei.  Lit.  A  lent.  vol.  II.  pp.  78,  80. 

3  Mabillon,  vol.  11.  p.  lxx.  Cf.  Martene,  vol.  in.  lib.  iv.  cap.  xxii. 
p.  117. 

4  Martene,  vol.  in.  lib.  iv.  cap.  xxii.  pp.  112,  no,  115,  92. 

5  Martene,  vol.  in.  lib.  iv.  cap.  xxii.  p.  88. 

6  Gerbert,  vol.  11.  pp.  200-1. 


62  THE  SANCTA  [ch.  iv 

The  use  of  the  term  "  Sancta"  as  the  common  designation 
of  the  consecrated  elements,  whether  reserved  or  not,  is 
thus  very  widespread  and  persistent;  and  other  examples 
might  be  quoted.  It  is  by  no  means  limited  to  Rome.  In 
particular  the  common  explanation,  which  limits  it  to  the 
portion  of  a  host  consecrated  on  a  previous  occasion  and 
put  into  the  chalice  at  the  words  Pax  Domini  when  the 
pope  celebrated  at  a  station  mass,  appears  to  be  entirely 
without  foundation. 


CHAPTER  V 
THE  PORTION  OF  THE  HOST  LEFT  ON  THE  ALTAR 

THE  portion  of  the  host  broken  by  the  celebrant  and 
laid  down  on  the  altar  till  the  end  of  mass  appears 
to  have  been  closely  connected  with  the  Sancta.  In  Ordo  I 
according  to  the  St  Gall  manuscript  we  read : 

Then  the  pontiff  breaks  the  obley  on  the  right  side,  and  the 
particle  which  he  breaks  off  he  leaves  upon  the  altar;  but  the 
rest  of  his  own  oblations  he  puts  on  the  paten  which  the  deacon 
holds,  and  returns  to  his  throne.... And  the  altar  being  emptied 
of  the  oblations,  save  for  the  particle  which  the  pontiff  left 
upon  the  altar  from  his  own  oblation  which  he  broke  (because 
they  so  keep  the  rule  that  while  the  solemnities  of  mass  are 
being  performed  the  altar  should  not  be  without  the  sacrifice), 
the  archdeacon  looks  to  the  choir  and  nods  to  them  to  say 
Agnus  Dei1. 

In  the  Colbertine  manuscript  the  whole  section  "save 
for  the  particle ...  the  sacrifice"  is  omitted.  The  note  is 
thus  probably  a  Gallican  addition,  but  the  practice  de- 
scribed, being  found  in  all  the  recensions  of  the  Ordo,  is 
certainly  Roman. 

There  is  no  definite  statement  on  the  subject,  but  it 
would  seem  that  the  portion  of  the  host  which  remained 
on  the  altar  till  the  end  of  mass  was  reserved  until  another 
day,  and  was  added  to  the  stock  of  the  Sancta,  taking  the 
place  apparently  of  what  was  used  at  the  commixture  by 
the  pope. 

In  Ordo  II  the  directions  are  much  cut  down : 

Then  the  pontiff  breaks  the  obley  on  the  right  side,  and  the 
particle  which  he  breaks  oft",  he  leaves  upon  the  altar,  but  the 

1  Mabillon,  n.  pp.  13,  14. 


64        THE  PORTION  LEFT  ON  THE  ALTAR     [ch. 

rest  of  his  oblations  he  puts  on  the  paten  which  the  deacon  holds, 
and  returns  to  his  throne.... And  the  altar  being  emptied  of 
the  oblations,  the  archdeacon  looks  to  the  choir  and  nods  to 
them  to  say  Agnus  Dei1. 

In  Ordo  III  the  directions  are  practically  the  same  and 
the  host  is  called  the  Sancta.   We  read : 

Then  the  pontiff  breaks  the  obley  on  the  right  side,  and  the 
particle  of  that  Sancta  which  he  has  broken  he  leaves  on  the 
altar2. 

In  Ordo  IV  there  is  no  need  to  leave  a  particle  on  the 
altar  till  the  end  of  mass,  for  in  accordance  with  Gallican 
custom  the  Sancta  is  reserved  on  or  over  the  altar,  and 
the  host  is  broken  into  two  pieces  instead  of  three,  one 
being  consumed  by  the  celebrant  and  the  other  put  into 
the  chalice.  As  the  reserved  host  is  not  used  for  the  com- 
mixture there  is  no  need  to  replenish  the  stock  of  the 
Sancta. 

In  Ordo  V  likewise  the  host  is  broken  into  two  pieces 
only,  but  the  celebrant  consumes  neither.  The  part  laid 
upon  the  altar  is  distinctly  separated  from  what  is  to  be 
used  for  the  communion,  and  presumably  it  is  left  un- 
touched until  the  end  of  the  mass.   We  read : 

Let  the  bishop  divide  between  them  (two  patens  brought  by 
the  deacon)  the  sacred  body  which  has  been  consecrated,  and  let 
him  break  one  of  the  obleys,  and  from  it  put  one  particle  on 
the  corporal,  and  the  other  into  the  chalice  when  he  says 
Pax  Domini3. 

The  usual  custom  was  for  the  host  to  be  divided  into 
three  portions,  as  it  still  is,  and  a  mystical  reason  for  it, 
ascribed  to  Pope  Sergius  (f  701)  by  Ivo  of  Chartres  (f  n  15) 
and  Gratian  (j  1151)  is  frequently  quoted.   We  read: 

Threefold  is  the  body  of  the  Lord.  The  portion  of  the  obley 
which  is  put  into  the  chalice  shows  the  body  of  Christ  which 

1  Mabillon,  vol.  n.  pp.  49,  50.  2  Mabillon,  vol.  It.  p.  59. 

3  Mabillon,  vol.  11.  p.  68. 


v]         THE  PORTION  LEFT  ON  THE  ALTAR        65 

has  already  risen,  the  portion  eaten  Christ  walking  still  upon  the 
earth,  the  portion  remaining  on  the  altar  until  the  end  of  mass 
His  body  lying  in  the  grave,  because  the  bodies  of  the  saints 
will  be  in  their  graves  until  the  end  of  the  world1. 

Amalarius  in  describing  the  fraction  uses  an  Or  do  akin, 
as  we  have  seen,  to  the  First  Roman  Ordo  for  the  basis  of 
his  exposition,  and  gives  a  lengthy  explanation  of  its 
meaning,  also  quoting  Sergius.   We  read : 

There  follows  in  the  aforementioned  little  book.... Then  the 
pontiff  breaks  the  obley  on  the  right  side,  and  the  particle 
which  he  breaks  off  he  leaves  upon  the  altar,  but  the  rest  of 
the  oblations  he  puts  on  the  paten  which  the  deacon  holds2. 

Concerning  the  portion  of  the  obley  which  remains  on  the 
altar.  Threefold  is  the  body  of  Christ. ...By  the  particle  of 
the  obley  dropped  into  the  chalice  is  shown  the  body  of  Christ 
which  has  already  risen  from  the  dead,  by  that  eaten  by  the 
priest  or  people,  that  walking  still  upon  the  earth,  by  that  left  on 
the  altar,  that  lying  in  the  graves.  The  same  body  brings  the 
obley  with  it  to  the  grave,  and  holy  church  calls  it  the  viaticum 
of  the  dying... and  that  particle  remains  on  the  altar  until  the 
end  of  mass  because  the  bodies  of  the  saints  will  rest  in  their 
graves  until  the  end  of  the  world3. 

That  the  portion  of  the  host  left  on  the  altar  is  reserved 
is  clear,  but  presumably  only  for  the  sick.  As  we  noticed 
in  discussing  the  Sancta  Amalarius  appears  to  know 
nothing  of  the  ceremony  of  putting  the  presanctified  host 
as  such  into  the  chalice. 

At  the  synod  of  Quiercy,  held  in  838  under  Louis  the 
Pious,  various  opinions  of  Amalarius  were  condemned,  and 
in  particular  the  ideas  expressed  in  the  exposition  of  the 
three  parts  of  the  priest's  host,  which  he  had  borrowed 
from  Sergius.    We  read : 

1  Ivo  Cam.  Panormia,  i.  140,  P.L.  clxi.  col.  1076.  Gratian,  Decre- 
tum,  Pars  in.  De  Consec.  Dist.  11.  c.  22,  P.L.  clxxxvii.  col.  1740. 

2  De  Eccles.  Off.  lib.  in.  31.   Hittorp,  col.  433. 

3  Lib.  in.  35.   Hittorp,  col.  435. 

L.  E.  5 


66        THE  PORTION  LEFT  ON  THE  ALTAR     [ch. 

And  so  the  aforesaid  teacher  asserts  among  other  things  that 
the  body  of  Christ  is  threefold  and  tripartite,  that  indeed  there 
are  three  bodies  of  Christ... asserting  that  the  one  is  Christ, 
another  the  faithful  who  are  alive,  another  those  who  are 
departed,  and  that  Christ  indeed  is  contained  in  the  particle 
of  the  chalice,  the  living  in  the  fragments  on  the  paten,  but  the 
departed  in  a  certain  particle  on  the  altar1. 

It  is  plain  from  their  manner  of  referring  to  it  that  the 
fathers  assembled  at  Quiercy  were  not  familiar  with  the 
practice  of  leaving  a  host  on  the  altar  until  the  end  of  mass, 
and  that  it  was  a  Roman  custom  at  that  time  not  yet 
adopted  at  any  rate  in  parts  of  Gaul.  The  fact  that 
Amalarius  was  condemned  for  employing  the  explanation 
of  Sergius  does  not  appear  to  have  affected  its  subsequent 
popularity  in  Gaul  as  elsewhere. 

Rhabanus  Maurus  (1856),  who  claims  to  describe 
Roman  custom,  and  quotes  a  Roman  Ordo,  uses  very 
similar  words  to  Amalarius.   We  read: 

Let  the  priest  break  the  obley  on  the  right  side,  one  particle 
being  left  upon  the  altar,  and  the  rest  of  the  oblations  let  him 
put  on  a  paten  which  the  deacon  holds.  By  the  particle  of  the 
obley  dropped  into  the  chalice  he  shows  the  body  of  Christ 
which  has  already  risen  from  the  dead,  by  that  eaten  by  the 
priest  and  people,  that  which  still  walks  with  the  disciples  on 
the  earth  after  the  resurrection,  and  shows  Him  alive,  by  that 
left  on  the  altar  he  suggests  Him  lying  in  the  grave  and  de- 
serted by  His  disciples  in  His  passion2. 

The  pseudoAlcuin  (eleventh  century?), quoting Remigius 
of  Auxerre  (f  908),  gives  a  similar  explanation,  and  evi- 
dently the  custom  of  reserving  the  third  portion  of  the 
host  on  the  altar  till  the  end  of  mass  still  obtains: 

Pope  Sergius  ordered  that  at  the  time  of  the  fraction  of  the 
Lord's  body  Agnus  Dei  should  be  sung  by  clergy  and  people. 
Threefold  is  the  body  of  Christ.... By  the  particle  of  the  obley 

1  Mansi,  Concilia,  vol.  xiv.  col.  742,  745. 

2  Rhabanus  Maurus,  De  Inst.  Cler.  lib.  I.  33.    Hittorp,  col.  586. 


v]         THE  PORTION  LEFT  ON  THE  ALTAR        67 

put  into  the  chalice  is  shown  the  body  of  Christ  which  has 
already  risen  from  the  dead,  by  that  eaten  by  the  priest  or 
people  that  walking  still  upon  the  earth,  by  that  left  on  the 
altar  until  the  end  of  mass  that  lying  in  the  tomb  until  the 
end  of  the  world1. 

In  his  explanation  of  the  duties  of  the  subdeacon, 
already  quoted,  the  pseudo  Alcuin  suggests  that  the  dis- 
posal of  the  entire  remains  of  the  sacrament,  as  well  as  of 
the  third  part  of  the  host  placed  on  the  altar,  was  post- 
poned until  the  end  of  mass: 

The  sacrifice  being  finished  he  takes  up  the  mysteries  of  the 
body  and  blood  of  the  Lord  which  were  left  over,  to  be  gathered 
up  or  carried  away  by  the  deacon2. 

Though  the  words  used,  "peracto  sacrificio,"  might 
refer  to  the  consecration  that  explanation  is  impossible 
here ;  they  are  hardly  used  of  the  communion,  but  might 
refer  to  the  end  of  the  service,  an  explanation  which 
agrees  well  with  his  interpretation  (taken  from  Remigius 
of  Auxerre)  of  Ite  missa  est — "Mass  is  complete,  both  the 
oblation  on  our  behalf  and  the  prayer3." 

A  description  of  the  practice  of  St  Adalbert,  Bishop  of 
Prague  (f  c.  997),  the  phraseology  of  which,  as  we  have 
seen,  is  very  similar  to  that  of  the  pseudo  Alcuin's  explana- 
tion of  the  duties  of  the  subdeacon,  can  hardly  refer  to 
anything  before  the  end  of  the  service.   We  read: 

Whatever  was  left  over  of  that  from  which  he  and  the  newly 
baptized  had  communicated  he  commanded  to  be  gathered 
up  and  he  kept  it  for  himself  wrapped  in  a  most  clean  cloth, 
to  carry  it  away  for  viaticum4. 

In  the  tenth  century  Corbie  Or  do  for  Maundy  Thursday, 
which,  we  noted,  was  a  modification  of  a  Roman  Ordo,  it 
is  quite  plain  that  the  sacrament  to  be  reserved  for  the 

1  De  Divinis  Officiis.    Hittorp,  col.  277. 

2  Hittorp,  col.  269.     See  p.  37  above. 

3  Hittorp,  col.  295. 

4  P.L.  cxxxvu.  col.  884.    See  p.  37. 


68        THE  PORTION  LEFT  ON  THE  ALTAR     [ch. 

morrow  remains  on  the  altar  until  the  end  of  mass.  We 
have  already  quoted  part  of  the  description,  but  it  may 
be  given  in  full : 

When  the  priest  has  broken  the  Sancta  let  him  put  one 
portion  into  the  chalice  and  communicate  from  another,  but 
the  third  let  him  put  down  on  the  altar... and  let  the  deacon 
take  the  larger  paten  and  put  on  it  whole  hosts  of  the  Sancta, 
and  place  it  on  the  left  side  near  the  chalice... and  let  the  deacon 
take  from  the  larger  paten  as  many  of  the  obleys  as  will  suffice 
to  communicate  the  people.. ..And  immediately  let  that  which 
remains  on  the  altar  be  covered  by  the  two  deacons,  each  with 
a  clean  linen  cloth... and  after  the  Post  Communion  prayer  let 
not  the  deacon  say,  Ite  missa  est,  but  let  all  things  be  finished 
with  that  prayer.  And  let  those  obleys  which  had  remained 
covered  upon  the  altar  be  preserved  until  the  morrow  according 
to  custom1. 

Though  it  is  not  definitely  stated,  it  would  seem  as  if 
the  third  part  of  the  host  which  remained  on  the  altar,  as 
well  as  the  whole  hosts,  was  reserved  until  the  morrow; 
at  any  rate  nothing  is  said  about  its  consumption. 

In  the  Ordo  of  St  Amand,  contrary  to  the  usual  rule  in 
the  matter,  it  is  plainly  stated  that  some  of  the  hosts  are 
to  be  reserved.   We  read  at  the  offertory: 

He  (the  deacon)  gives  them  (the  obleys)  to  the  archdeacon 
and  with  them  he  makes  three  or  five  rows  upon  the  altar,  so 
much  as  will  suffice  for  the  people,  and  then  some  remain  until 
the  morrow  according  to  the  requirement  of  the  canon2. 

After  the  consecration  we  are  told : 

When  the  pontiff  has  said  Pax  Domini  the  subdeacon  takes 
the  paten  from  the  acolyte,  and  gives  it  to  the  archdeacon, 
and  he  holds  it  at  the  right  hand  of  the  pontiff,  and  he  breaks 
one  of  the  obleys  which  he  offers  for  himself,  and  puts  down 
the  chief  part  of  it  upon  the  altar,  and  places  the  whole  obley 

1  Martene,  vol.  iv.  lib.  in.  cap.  xiii.  §§  xliii,  xlv.  p.  128. 

2  Duchesne,  C.W.  p.  460. 


v]         THE  PORTION  LEFT  ON  THE  ALTAR        69 

and  part  of  the  other  on  the  paten,  and  the  archdeacon  returns 
the  paten  to  the  acolyte,  and  the  pontiff  goes  back  to  his  throne1 . 

Nothing  is  said  about  what  happens  to  the  portion  of  the 
obley  placed  on  the  altar,  but  presumably  it  becomes  part 
of  the  Sancta  reserved  until  the  next  day. 

When  the  pope  himself  celebrates  there  is  no  mention 
of  the  putting  of  a  piece  of  the  host  consecrated  on  a 
previous  occasion  into  the  chalice,  a  point  we  noticed  in 
various  Gallicanized  Ordines  of  later  date,  but  when  a 
bishop  or  priest  celebrates  in  his  stead  a  particle  of  the 
Sancta  consecrated  by  the  pope  is  put  into  the  chalice  at 
Pax  Domini.  The  conclusion  that  the  portion  of  the  host 
placed  on  the  altar  is  reserved  and  added  to  the  Sancta 
when  the  pope  celebrates  seems  to  receive  confirmation 
from  the  direction,  given  below,  that  when  another 
celebrates  it  is  to  be  used  for  the  communion  of  two  of 
the  bishops,  for  then  of  course  it  would  be  impossible  to 
use  it  to  replenish  the  stock  of  the  Sancta,  since  this  is 
limited  to  what  is  consecrated  by  the  pope  himself. 
After  the  division  of  the  rest  of  the  obley s  for  the  fraction, 
we  read : 

Then  the  bishop  returns  to  the  altar  to  break  the  portion 
of  the  obley  which  remained,  and  when  they  have  performed 
the  fraction  the  deacon  announces  the  station,  as  is  the  custom. 
And  both  bishops  and  priests  come  to  communicate  before 
the  altar,  and  the  bishop  gives  two  of  the  particles  to  the  first 
of  the  bishops  into  his  hand,  and  he  who  receives  them  returns 
one  of  them  to  him,  and  he  holds  the  particle  in  his  right  hand 
until  they  communicate,  as  above,  and  then  he  places  his 
hands  upon  the  altar,  and  communicates  himself,  who  has 
said  the  mass2. 

In  the  explanation  of  the  order  of  the  mass  given  by 
Bernoldof  Constance  (f  1100)  in  the  Micrologics,  and  based 
on  Roman  and  Gallican  Ordines,  the  reasons  given  for  the 

1  Duchesne,  C.W.  p.  461.  a  Duchesne,  C.W.  pp.  464-5. 


?o        THE  PORTION  LEFT  ON  THE  ALTAR     [ch 


L 


threefold  division  of  the  host  have  been  modified,  and  the 
third  portion  is  used  for  the  communion  when  not  required 
for  the  sick,  and  only  in  that  case  does  it  remain  on  the 
altar  till  the  end  of  mass.  There  is  no  putting  of  a  particle 
of  a  presanctified  host  into  the  chalice,  and  there  is  not 
necessarily  anything  reserved.   We  read : 

But  when  he  says  Per  Dominum  nostrum  he  breaks  the  host 
on  the  right  side  according  to  the  Ordo  to  show  the  piercing 
of  the  Lord's  side.  Then  he  breaks  the  greater  portion  into 
two  that  he  may  be  able  to  deal  with  three  parts  of  the  Lord's 
body,  for  one  he  ought  to  put  into  the  chalice,  making  a  cross, 
when  he  says  Pax  Domini,  to  show  the  union  of  body  and  soul 
in  the  resurrection  of  Christ;  the  second  indeed  the  priest 
himself  of  necessity  consumes  before  partaking  of  the  chalice 
according  to  the  Lord's  institution,  but  the  third  he  of  necessity 
puts  down  for  those  about  to  communicate,  or  for  the  sick. 
Nor  is  this  in  any  way  without  real  symbolical  significance. 
For  in  a  threefold  manner  is  the  Lord's  body  understood.... 
The  third,  that  which  now  rests  in  Christ,  is  also  aptly  figured 
by  the  third  particle  reserved  on  the  altar,  which  we  are  accus- 
tomed to  call  the  viaticum  of  the  dying1. 

John  of  Avranches  (c.  1065)  describes  a  similar  practice, 
and  again  it  is  the  third  portion  of  the  broken  host,  not  a 
whole  host,  which  is  reserved  on  the  altar,  when  required, 
for  the  sick.   We  read : 

Let  the  deacon  offer  the  paten  to  the  priest,  and  on  it  let 
the  priest  divide  the  body  of  the  Lord  into  three  parts.  Putting 
one  of  the  parts  into  the  chalice  let  the  priest  say  with  a  loud 
voice  Pax  Domini,  and  immediately  add  in  secret  Fiat  com- 
mixtio.  With  another  let  him  communicate  himself,  the  deacon 
and  subdcacon.  The  third,  the  viaticum,  if  there  be  need,  let 
him  reserve  on  the  paten  until  the  end  of  mass. .  .The  third,  which 
remains  on  the  altar,  holy  church  calls  the  viaticum  of  the 
dying,  that  it  may  be  shown  that  they  ought  not  to  be  con- 
sidered dying  who  die  in  Christ,  but  sleeping  until  they 
1  De  Eccles.  Obscrv.  17.   Hittorp,  col.  741. 


v]        THE  PORTION  LEFT  ON  THE  ALTAR        71 

are  brought  by  such  and  so  mighty  a  Leader  to  eternal  life;  but 
if  there  be  no  need,  let  the  priest  or  one  of  the  ministers  receive 
the  third  part1. 

According  to  the  Gemma  Animae,  ascribed  to  Honorius 
of  Autun  (c.  1 1 23),  the  third  part  is  usually  given  to 
the  subdeacon,  and  it  is  only  reserved  for  the  sick  on 
occasion.  The  reservation  has  now  become  quite  formal  in 
a  pyx,  not  merely  the  leaving  of  the  particle  on  the  altar 
till  the  end  of  mass.   We  read : 

The  bishop  breaks  the  obley  because  the  Lord  broke  the 
bread  for  the  disciples  at  Emmaus.  He  divides  the  obley  into 
three  parts,  and  retaining  one  for  himself  gives  two  to  the  deacon 
and  subdeacon,  because  the  Lord  after  breaking  the  bread 
apportioned  one  part  to  Himself,  and  two  to  Cleopas  and 
Luke2. 

Concerning  the  three  parts  of  the  obley.  The  obley  is  not 
consumed  whole,  but  is  divided  into  three;  one  is  put  into  the 
chalice,  another  is  consumed  by  the  priest,  the  third  is  placed 
in  a  pyx  as  the  viaticum  for  the  dying,  because  the  body  of 
Christ  is  threefold.... The  piece  left  on  the  altar  is  the  body  of 
the  Lord  resting  in  the  tomb,  that  is,  the  church  dead  in  Christ, 
but  about  to  rise  again  through  union  with  the  body  of 
Christ3. 

Peter  Lombard  (f  1164)  and  Innocent  III  (f  1180)  both 
quote  the  words  of  Sergius  with  regard  to  the  three  parts 
of  the  obley4,  but  say  nothing  which  gives  any  information 
whether  the  practice  of  leaving  the  third  part  on  the  altar 
until  the  end  of  mass  was  still  in  use. 

Hugh  of  St  Victor  (f  1141)  likewise  gives  the  exposition 
of  Sergius,  as  an  alternative  explanation  of  the  three 
portions  of  the  broken  host,  and  his  words  imply  that  the 

1  De  Offic.  Eccles.,  P.L.  cxlviii.  col.  36-7. 

2  De  Ant.  Ritu  Miss.  lib.  1.  63.   Hittorp,  col.  1 197-8. 

3  Lib.  1.  64,  col.  1 198. 

4  Sententiae,  Lib.  iv.  Dist.  xn.  6,  P.L.  1.  (Second  Series)  col.  356.  De 
Sacro  Altaris  Mysterio,  lib.  vi.  c.  3,  P.L.  ccxvu.  col.  907. 


72        THE  PORTION  LEFT  ON  THE  ALTAR     [ch. 

practice  with  regard  to  the  third  was  not  yet  obsolete.  We 
read: 

Yet  Pope  Sergius  speaks  otherwise  on  these  points,  for  he 
wishes  the  union  of  the  body  and  soul  of  Christ  made  in  the 
resurrection  to  be  signified  by  the  commixture  of  the  body  and 
blood,  for  he  says,  The  piece  of  the  obley  put  into  the  chalice 
shows  the  body  of  Christ  which  has  already  risen,  the  piece 
eaten  that  walking  on  the  earth,  the  piece  put  back  on  the 
altar  until  the  end  of  mass,  the  members  of  Christ,  that  is,  the 
bodies  of  the  saints,  resting  in  their  graves  until  the  end  of  the 
world1. 

By  the  time  of  St  Thomas  Aquinas  (f  1274)  the  practice 
of  leaving  the  third  part  of  the  priest's  host  on  the  altar 
until  the  end  of  mass  has  become  a  thing  of  the  past, 
though  he  thinks  the  interpretation  ascribed  to  Sergius 
as  still  of  value.   We  read : 

To  the  eighth  objection  we  reply  that,  as  Pope  Sergius  says, 
(and  it  is  found  De  Consec.  Dist.  11.  cap.  22),  Threefold  is 
the  body  of  the  Lord... the  portion  remaining  on  the  altar  until 
the  end  of  mass  is  the  body  lying  in  the  grave,  because  the 
bodies  of  the  saints  will  be  in  their  graves  until  the  end  of  the 
world — though  their  souls  are  in  either  purgatory  or  heaven. 
Though  this  rite  is  not  now  observed,  namely  that  one  portion 
should  be  reserved  until  the  end  of  mass,  because  of  the  danger, 
yet  the  significance  of  the  portions  remains  the  same,  which 
indeed  they  have  expressed  in  metre  saying,  "  The  host  is  divided 
into  parts;  that  which  is  soaked  denotes  the  fully  blessed,  that 
which  is  dry  the  living,  that  which  is  reserved  those  who  are 
buried2." 

Evidently  Aquinas  does  not  realise  the  connection, 
which  comes  out  quite  clearly  in  the  Gemma  Animae  of 
Honorius  of  Autun3,  between  the  third  part  of  the  broken 

1  De  Offic.  Eccles.  lib.  ir.  39.   Hittorp,  col.  1409. 

*  Summa  Theologica,  Pars  in.  Quaes,  lxxxiii.     De  ritu  eucharistiae, 
Art.  v.,  P.L.  iv.  (Second  Series),  col.  847. 
3  See  p.  71. 


v]         THE  PORTION  LEFT  ON  THE  ALTAR        73 

host  which  was  put  down  on  the  altar  till  the  end  of  mass 
and  then  reserved,  and  the  hosts  for  reservation  which 
still  remain  on  the  altar  until  the  conclusion  of  the  service, 
or  he  would  not  have  regarded  the  custom  as  entirely 
obsolete. 

According  to  Durandus  (f  1296)  the  portion  of  the  host 
put  down  on  the  altar  remained  there  until  the  end  of  mass 
even  when,  not  being  required  for  the  sick,  it  was  consumed 
by  the  ministers  of  the  altar,  and  presumably  this  was  the 
original  custom  when  it  was  not  to  be  reserved  longer, 
which  does  not  appear  to  have  been  always  the  case,  and 
it  agrees  exactly  with  our  conclusion  about  the  time  of  the 
consumption  of  the  remains  of  the  consecrated  elements, 
that  it  did  not  take  place  until  the  service  was  over. 
Like  St  Thomas  Aquinas  he  fails  to  realise  that  the  treat- 
ment of  the  hosts  to  be  reserved  is  historically  a  con- 
tinuation of  the  practice  by  which  the  third  part  of  the 
priest's  host  remained  on  the  altar  until  the  end  of  the 
liturgy.    We  read: 

According  to  Pope  Sergius...the  portion  reserved  until  the 
end  of  mass  according  to  the  ancient  custom  of  the  Roman 
church  for  the  ministers  or  the  sick  signifies  all  the  dead... Pope 
Sergius  says,  Threefold  is  the  body  of  the  Lord... the  portion 
remaining  on  the  altar  till  the  end  of  mass  the  body  of  Christ, 
or  according  to  others,  the  body  of  the  faithful  hidden  in  the 
grave.  This  part  remains  on  the  altar  till  the  end  of  mass 
because  the  bodies  of  the  saints  will  be  in  their  graves  until  the 
end  of  the  world.  The  part  however  which  is  reserved  until  the 
end  of  mass  is  no  longer  in  use1. 

Though  at  first  sight  all  these  accounts  seem  very 
similar  we  can  trace  out  the  gradual  modification  of 
practice  due  to  the  change  of  ideas.  We  gather  that  in  the 
earliest  days  the  remains  of  the  consecrated  hosts  were 
not  dealt  with  until  the  conclusion  of  the  service,  and  that 
the  presence  of  the  sacrifice  on  the  altar  until  the  end  of 

1  Rationale  Div.  Off.  lib.  iv.  cap.  li.   De  Fractione  Hostiae,  f.  Ixxv. 


74   THE  PORTION  LEFT  ON  THE  ALTAR  [ch.  v 

mass  was  considered  so  important  that  one  of  the  pieces 
of  the  host  broken  at  the  fraction  was  retained  on  the 
altar  even  during  the  communion  to  ensure  that  some 
should  remain,  and  it  was  for  this  purpose  originally  that 
the  host  was  broken  into  three  parts.  Afterwards  the 
third  portion  of  the  host  was  reserved  and  added  to  the 
supply  of  the  Sancta,  which  was  thus  undiminished  by 
the  papal  mass,  and  if  necessary  could  be  used  for  the 
commixture  on  another  day.  Even  after  the  custom  of 
putting  a  particle  of  the  presanctified  host  into  the  chalice 
was  limited  to  a  priest's  mass,  the  host  continued  to  be 
broken  into  three,  and  the  third  part  was  reserved  on  the 
altar  till  the  end  of  mass,  being  apparently  consumed  by 
the  ministers  when  not  required  for  the  sick.  At  length, 
however,  the  practice  lapsed,  except  when  there  was 
special  need  for  reservation,  and  the  third  part  was  used 
with  the  rest  of  the  consecrated  elements  for  the  com- 
munion. 


CHAPTER  VI 
ON  MAUNDY  THURSDAY 

THE  earliest  clear  reference  to  the  reservation  of  the 
sacrament  on  Maundy  Thursday  in  the  West  is  to 
be  found,  as  we  have  already  noticed,  in  the  Gelasian 
Sacramentary  (c.  700,  and  later).   We  read: 

They  communicate  and  reserve  of  this  sacrifice  until  the 
morrow;  and  thence  let  them  communicate1. 

On  Good  Friday  the  direction  runs : 

The  above  written  prayers  being  finished  the  deacons  go 
into  the  sacristy.  They  proceed  with  the  body  and  blood  of  the 
Lord  which  remained  the  day  before,  and  place  it  upon  the 
altar2. 

We  are  told  nothing  how  or  when  the  consecrated 
elements  were  taken  into  the  sacristy  for  reservation,  but 
as  what  was  reserved  was  that  which  had  been  specially 
consecrated  in  excess  of  the  needs  of  the  communion  on 
Maundy  Thursday  the  custom  was  presumably  much  the 
same  as  on  other  days.  Practically  the  same  words  are 
repeated  in  various  later  service  books,  as  the  Leofric 
missal,  but  the  point  is  still  left  undecided.  In  Roman 
Ordo  I  we  read : 

All  the  people  communicate  in  their  order,  and  he  reserves 
of  the  Sancta  until  the  morrow3. 

In  the  Gallican  Appendix  to  Ordo  I  we  find  similar 
directions,  and  though  no  precise  moment  is  mentioned, 
save  that  it  is  after  the  communion,  we  learn  that  a 
traditional  custom  is  followed: 

Mass  being  finished  they  communicate  in  the  appointed 

1  Wilson,  Gelasian  Sacramentary,  p.  72. 

2  Wilson,  p.  77.  3  Mabillon,  vol.  II.  p.  21. 


76  ON  MAUNDY  THURSDAY  [ch. 

order,  and  reserve  of  the  Sancta  until  the  morrow  according 
to  custom1. 

In  the  Ordo  of  St  Amand  we  get  more  definite  informa- 
tion about  the  time,  which  agrees  with  what  appears  to 
have  been  the  practice  on  ordinary  days.   We  read: 

Mass  being  finished  the  deacon  says,  lie  missa  est,  and  the 
Sancta  are  reserved  until  the  morrow2. 

The  rules  of  the  monastery  of  Corbie  of  the  tenth  century, 
though  more  elaborate,  are  to  the  same  effect  as  regards 
the  time  of  reservation.   We  read: 

Let  them  (the  deacons)  return  to  the  priest  that  they  may 
communicate,  and  the  rest  in  order.  And  after  the  Post 
Communion  prayer  let  not  the  deacon  say,  lie  missa  est,  but 
let  all  things  be  finished  with  that  prayer.  And  let  those  obleys 
which  had  remained  covered  upon  the  altar,  be  preserved 
until  the  morrow  according  to  custom3. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  the  development  in  the  manner 
of  reserving  the  sacrament  on  Maundy  Thursday  at  Cluny. 
In  the  earlier  versions  of  the  Constitutions,  dating  from 
the  first  half  of  the  eleventh  century,  according  to  different 
manuscripts  we  read : 

All  ought  to  communicate,  even  the  children,  and  the  levite 
ought  to  send  so  many  hosts  to  mass  that  some  may  be  reserved 
for  the  morrow4. 

All  ought  to  communicate,  even  the  children,  and  so  many 
hosts  ought  to  be  sent  to  mass  that  when  the  brethren  are 
communicated  there  may  remain  enough  for  all  to  com- 
municate from  them  on  the  morrow5. 

The  Constitutions  of  Sigibert  give  more  details.  We 
read: 

So  many  hosts  ought  to  be  offered  as  will  suffice  also  for 
communion  another  day.    Let  all  the  brethren  communicate, 

1  Mabillon,  vol.  ir.  p.  32.  2  Duchesne,  C.W.  p.  467. 

8  Martene,  vol.  iv.  lib.  in.  cap.  xiii.  §§  xliii,  xlv.  p.  128. 
*  Albers,  Consuet.  Clun.  Ant.  p.  18.  6  Albers,  p.  48. 


vi]  ON  MAUNDY  THURSDAY  77 

even  the  children.  Let  nothing  of  the  blood  of  the  Lord  remain 
in  the  chalice,  but  let  all  be  consumed.  After  mass  let  the 
deacon  and  the  secretary  and  the  lay  brethren  come  with 
candles  and  thurible,  and  take  the  chalice  and  the  paten  which 
has  the  Lord's  body,  putting  another  paten  upon  it,  and  wrap 
it  in  most  clean  linen,  and  put  it  away  upon  some  altar,  or  in 
a  most  clean  coffer,  and  let  there  be  a  light  before  it  all  day 
and  all  night  until  matins1. 

Ulrich's  version  of  the  Constitutions  of  Cluny  (late 
eleventh  century)  gives  an  identical  practice.   We  read : 

Mass  being  finished,  the  tablet  is  struck  as  a  sign  for  vespers... 
Meanwhile  the  Lord's  body  is  put  away  by  the  priest  behind  the 
altar  on  a  golden  paten,  and  the  paten  between  golden  plates, 
and  the  plates  again  between  silver  tablets  which  were  made 
for  the  text  of  the  gospel.  And  thus  it  is  carried  from  the  altar 
with  candles  and  very  much  incense2. 

The  Customs  of  the  monastery  of  St  Benignus  at  Dijon 
(twelfth  century)  are  based  on  those  of  Cluny,  and  the 
sacrament  is  carried  away  likewise  during  vespers,  but 
they  need  not  be  quoted3.  Similar  directions  are  to  be 
found  in  various  places  at  this  period.  The  Carthusian  rule 
(c.  1 130)  disapproved  of  such  elaborate  ceremonial  on  the 
occasion,  and  preferred  the  simplicity  of  an  ordinary  day, 
the  host  being  reserved  as  usual  at  the  high  altar.  We  read : 

One  host  of  the  larger  size  ought  to  be  consecrated  in  this 
mass  for  Good  Friday,  and  this  we  wish  put  back  in  the  usual 
place  at  the  high  altar,  and  forbid  sepulchres  to  be  made  for 
the  reserving  of  it  after  the  manner  of  the  seculars,  or  other 
preparations  not  fitting  for  our  solitude4. 

English  custom  about  the  time  of  putting  the  sacrament 
away  varied  much  as  in  other  places.   In  the  Constitutions 

1  Albers,  Consuet.  Sigib.  Abb.  xxx.  p.  93. 

2  Martene,  vol.  iv.  lib.  m.  cap.  xiii.  §  xlvi.  p.  128. 

3  Martene,  vol.  iv.  lib.  in.  cap.  xiii.  §  xlvi.  p.  128. 

4  Ordin.  Cart.  c.  xlix.  6.  Cf.  Martene,  vol.  iv.  lib.  in.  cap.  xiii.  §  xlvii. 
p.  129. 


78  ON  MAUNDY  THURSDAY  [ch. 

of  Lanfranc  (c.  1077),  akin  to  those  of  Cluny  and  Bee,  the 
sacrament  is  put  away  after  mass  during  vespers.  We  read : 

Mass  being  finished  let  evening  prayer  be  said  on  the  forms1. 
Meanwhile  let  the  priest  go  in  procession,  and  when  he  has 
come  to  the  altar  proceed  to  the  appointed  place  most  fittingly 
prepared,  and  there  repose  the  body  of  the  Lord2. 

The  directions  contained  in  a  pontifical  of  the  latter  half 
of  the  twelfth  century  at  Magdalen  College,  Oxford,  are 
obviously  based  on  those  of  Lanfranc.   We  read: 

And  the  brethren  and  those  who  wished  of  the  people  being 
communicated,  and  the  ampulla  of  the  sacred  chrism  being 
adored  and  kissed,  the  three  deacons  already  mentioned  carry 
back  the  same  ampullae  into  the  sacristy  with  devotion,  and 
put  them  by  in  a  fit  place  for  safety.  And  let  the  blood  on 
the  same  day  be  entirely  consumed.  Of  the  obleys  let  so  many 
be  reserved  until  the  morrow  as  will  be  able  to  suffice  for  all  to 
communicate.  Mass  being  celebrated,  let  the  bishop,  the  same 
procession  going  before  him  with  which  he  came  to  the  altar, 
proceed  to  the  appointed  place,  and  there  repose  the  body  of 
the  Lord,  the  place  being  censed  both  before  and  after  the 
reposing  of  it3. 

In  the  pontifical  of  Bishop  Lacy  of  Exeter  (f  1455) 
the  description  of  the  procession  of  the  oils  is  much 
the  same  as  in  that  at  Magdalen  College,  and  there  is 
clearly  a  literary  connection  between  the  two.  With 
respect  to  the  reposing  of  the  hosts  we  read: 

And  let  the  bishop  take  for  reservation  as  many  whole 
hosts  in  the  sacrifice  of  the  Lord's  body  as  will  suffice  for  Good 
Friday.  But  on  this  day  let  the  blood  be  entirely  consumed.... 
The  prayers  being  finished  with  the  antiphon,  let  the  bishop 
immediately  begin  the  antiphon,  Coenantibus.   The  canticle, 

1  This  is  explained  more  fully  in  the  Customs  of  St  Benignus  of 
Dijon,  "The  forms  being  turned  over  and  the  brethren  stretched  out 
prostrate  upon  them."   Martene,  vol.  iv.  lib.  in.  cap.  xiii.  §  xlvi.  p.  128. 

2  Martene,  vol.  iv.  lib.  in.  cap.  xiii.  §  xlvi.  p.  128. 

8  Wilson,  The  Pontifical  of  Magdalen  College  (H.B.S.),  p.  168. 


vi]  ON  MAUNDY  THURSDAY  79 

Magnificat.  Meanwhile  let  the  altar  be  censed.  And  so  when 
these  things  are  done  let  the  bishop  turn  to  the  altar,  and  say 
to  the  people,  Dominus  vobiscum.  The  Post  Communion  prayer, 
Refecti.  And  so  let  the  office  be  finished,  the  deacon  saying, 
Ite  missa  est.  And  so  let  mass  and  vespers  finish  together.  And 
let  the  hosts  be  put  away  reverently  in  a  seemly  place  by  the 
bishop  and  ministers  of  the  altar  clad  in  their  sacred  vest- 
ments1. 

In  the  Ordinate  of  Augustinian  use,  belonging  to  Holy- 
rood  and  dating  from  the  middle  of  the  fifteenth  century, 
the  text  of  the  description  of  the  Maundy  Thursday  pro- 
cession of  the  sacrament  is  an  elaborated  form  of  that  in 
the  Magdalen  College  pontifical,  being  akin  also  to  that  in 
the  pontifical  of  Bishop  Lacy,  though  now  the  hosts  are 
carried  away  during  vespers  and  before  the  end  of  mass. 
We  read: 

Let  the  deacon  put  so  many  hosts  for  consecration  as  will 
suffice  today  and  tomorrow  for  himself  and  for  those  of  the 
clergy  and  faithful  people  who  wish  to  communicate. ...And 
the  brethren  being  communicated  and  the  Communion  sung  let 
the  prelate  begin  the  antiphon,  Calicem  salutaris,  at  the  altar. 
And  while  the  vesper  psalms  are  sung  in  choir  let  him,  saying 
these  psalms  with  his  ministers,  place  the  hosts  to  be  reserved 
for  the  morrow  on  the  corporals  on  which  they  were  consecrated, 
folding  the  same  corporals  over,  and  placing  the  corporals 
folded  upon  one  of  the  chalices  let  him  give  it  to  the  deacon  to 
carry,  and  let  him  carry  it  with  great  care  and  let  the  prelate 
follow,  the  same  procession  going  before  him  with  which  he 
came  to  the  altar,  and  let  them  proceed  to  the  place  properly 
prepared  for  this  purpose,  and  there  let  the  same  prelate,  taking 
it  again  from  the  deacon,  carefully  and  fittingly  repose  the 
Lord's  body,  the  place  being  censed  both  before  and  after,  and 
as  long  as  the  Lord's  body  remains  there  let  a  light  burn  con- 
tinuously. This  being  completed  let  him  return  to  the  altar. 
And  the  psalms  being  said  let  him  begin  the  antiphon,  Coenanti- 

1  Barnes,  Liber  Pontificalis  of  Edmund  Lacy,  pp.  74-5. 


80  ON  MAUNDY  THURSDAY  [ch. 

bus,  immediately,  and  this  being  finished  after  Magnificat  let 
the  priest  turn  to  the  people  and  say,  Dominus  vobiscum,  and 
the  prayer  Ad  complendum,  and  the  deacon,  Benedicamus 
Domino;  and  let  mass  and  vespers  finish  together1. 

In  the  three  earliest  known  missals  of  Sarum  use,  dating 
from  the  latter  half  of  the  thirteenth  century  and  the 
beginning  of  the  fourteenth,  now  in  the  John  Rylands 
Library  at  Manchester,  the  Library  of  the  Arsenal  at 
Paris,  and  the  Library  of  the  University  of  Bologna,  there 
is  no  description  of  the  procession  or  information  about 
the  time  at  which  it  took  place.  We  read  at  the  offertory 
only: 

Let  three  hosts  be  put  for  consecration  by  the  subdeacon, 
and  of  these  let  two  be  reserved  for  the  morrow,  one  to  be 
received  by  the  priest,  the  other  that  it  may  be  reposed  with 
the  cross  in  the  sepulchre2. 

The  same  rubric  was  repeated  in  the  printed  Sarum 
missal3.  It  is  found  also  with  but  verbal  alterations  in 
the  rules  of  the  various  churches  which  imitated  Sarum 
use,  as  in  the  Exeter  Ordinale  issued  by  Bishop  Grandisson 
in  13374.  It  appears  likewise  in  the  printed  Hereford 
missal5.  In  the  Hereford  missal  there  is  also  another 
rubric  directing  the  sacrament  to  be  taken  to  the  place 
where  it  is  to  be  reserved  during  Magnificat  before  the  end 
of  mass.   We  read : 

This  fifth  antiphon  being  finished,  let  the  antiphon,  Coenanti- 
bus,  be  begun  immediately.  The  psalm,  Magnificat.  Meanwhile 
let  the  bishop  put  away  the  hosts  to  be  reserved  for  the 
morrow  with  lights  and  incense  in  a  proper  place  set  apart  for 
the  purpose.  The  antiphon,  Cocnantibus.  The  antiphon  being 
repeated  after  Magnificat,  let  the  priest  say  the  prayer  with 

1  Eeles,  The  Holyrood  Ordinale,  pp.  105-6. 

2  Legg,  The  Sarum  Missal,  p.  104. 

8  Dickinson,  Missale  Sarum,  col.  303. 

*  Dalton,  Ordinale  Exon.  vol.  1.  (H.B.S.),  p.  318. 

6  Henderson,  Missale  Herford.  p.  87. 


vi]  ON  MAUNDY  THURSDAY  81 

Dominus  vobiscum  and  Or  emus  in  the  accustomed  manner. 
The  prayer,  Refecti.  And  so  let  mass  and  vespers  finish  together1. 

The  Hereford  rubrics  at  this  point  are  almost  verbally 
identical  with  those  of  the  Sarum  missal  at  various  dates, 
and  must  be  derived  from  them,  but  the  Sarum  books 
have  nothing  corresponding  to  the  section,  "Meanwhile 
let  the  bishop. .  .for  the  purpose,"  and  so  it  is  evidently 
a  later  addition  and  derived  from  a  different  source. 

The  offertory  rubric  "Let  three  hosts. .  .sepulchre"  is 
found  also  in  a  York  missal  of  the  fifteenth  century  now 
at  Sidney  Sussex  College,  Cambridge,  but  this  manuscript 
copies  Sarum  rules  on  many  points,  and  the  direction  is 
absent  from  other  manuscript  York  missals,  and  from  the 
printed  editions2.  There  is,  however,  in  all  extant  York 
missals,  both  manuscript  and  printed  from  the  fourteenth 
to  the  sixteenth  century,  a  rubric  dealing  with  the  reserva- 
tion of  the  sacrament  on  Maundy  Thursday.   We  read: 

And  let  the  adults  of  the  church  communicate.  Let  the 
blood  be  entirely  consumed.  Let  there  be  reserved  of  the  body 
of  the  Lord  until  the  morrow,  and  let  it  be  reverently  reposed 
by  the  prelate  where  it  is  to  be  reserved.  The  Communion, 
Dominus  Jesus3. 

This  rubric,  though  ordering  the  sacrament  to  be  re- 
moved from  the  altar  before  the  end  of  mass,  like  the 
corresponding  rubric  at  Hereford,  is  easily  recognised  by 
the  phraseology  as  belonging  to  an  earlier  date.  On  Good 
Friday  the  York  missal  says  the  bishop  takes  the  chalice 
containing  the  sacrament  from  the  armariolum4,  and  this 
name  though  ultimately  Gallican  seems  to  suggest  possible 
Roman  influence,  being  found  in  this  connection  in 
Or  dines  XIV  and  XV.  On  several  other  points  such  as 
the  number  and  endings  of  the  collects  the  York  missal, 
both  in  the  printed  editions  and  in  some  of  the  manuscripts, 

1  Henderson,  pp.  89-90.         2  Henderson,  York  Missal,  vol.  I.  p.  97. 
3  Henderson,  vol.  1.  p.  98.      4  Henderson,  vol.  I.  p.  107.   See  pp.  84-5. 

L.  E.  6 


82  ON  MAUNDY  THURSDAY  [ch. 

has  since  the  fourteenth  century  appealed  to  a  Roman 
Ordo  and  the  custom  of  the  Roman  church,  quoting  the 
Micrologus1.  Similarly  perhaps  Roman  influence,  direct 
or  indirect,  may  have  affected  the  time  for  the  removal 
of  the  sacrament  from  the  altar  on  Maundy  Thursday. 

The  evolution  of  this  custom  at  Rome  is  particularly 
interesting,  and  it  rose  apparently  in  connection  with  the 
distribution  of  the  Fermentum.  We  noticed  in  the  Ordo  of 
St  Amand,  and  similarly  in  the  gloss  on  the  letter  of 
Innocent  I  to  Decentius  that  the  Fermentum  was  sent 
away  from  the  pope's  mass  to  the  titular  and  other 
churches  before  the  end  of  the  service.  In  the  Einsiedeln 
Ordo  we  found  two  processions,  or  at  any  rate  two  goings 
from  the  altar,  on  Maundy  Thursday  during  the  mass, 
first  that  of  the  oils,  and  secondly  that  of  the  consecrated 
hosts.   It  will  be  useful  to  repeat  the  description : 

And  when  the  whole  oblation  has  been  broken  the  Apostoli- 
cus  communicates  alone.  And  he  likewise  blesses  the  chrism, 
and  commands  that  there  be  a  distribution  of  it  to  the  titular 
and  other  churches,  either  by  the  oblationer  of  the  year,  or 
his  assistant.  Similarly  also  of  the  holy  sacrifice,  which  they 
reserve  for  the  Friday2. 

In  the  Roman  Ordo  X  (eleventh  century)  which  deals 
with  the  Holy  Week  ceremonies,  and  textually  is  an 
elaboration  of  the  rules  of  Ordo  I,  we  have  a  further 
development.   We  read: 

Afterwards,  let  the  ampullae  be  carried  back  in  procession, 

as  they  were  brought  in,  to  the  sacristy,  or  place  where  they 

ought  to  be  put,  and  thence  let  it  (the  oil)  be  distributed  to 

anyone  as  is  fitting  and  it  shall  be  required.    And  the  pope 

communicates  on  his  throne  those  who  wish  to  communicate. 

Yet  let  whole  obleys  of  the  body  of  the  Lord  be  reserved  for 

Good  Friday,  but  the  blood  of  the  Lord  be  entirely  consumed. 

The  kiss  of  peace  is  not  given,  Agnus  Dei  is  said,  and  the 

x  Henderson,  vol.  i.  pp.  168-9.   Cf.  Hittorp,  col.  735-6. 
1  Duchesne,  C.W.  pp.  481-2. 


vi]  ON  MAUNDY  THURSDAY  83 

Communion,  Dominus  Jesus  Christus.  But  before  the  pope 
returns  to  the  altar  to  finish  mass  let  the  junior  of  the  cardinal 
presbyters  carry  the  body  of  the  Lord,  placed  in  a  pyx,  to  the 
place  prepared,  preceded  by  cross  and  lights,  and  with  a 
canopy  over.  Then  the  pope  returns  to  the  altar  and  says  the 
prayer,  Refecti  vitalibus,  and  this  being  finished  the  deacon 
says,  lie  missa  est1. 

The  direction  about  the  oils  is  clearly  only  another 
version  of  that  found  in  the  Einsiedeln  Ordo,  while  that 
with  regard  to  the  sacrament  appears  to  be  evolved  from 
the  instructions  about  the  Fermentum,  and  instead  of  the 
departure  of  the  ministers  to  the  titular  churches  with  the 
Sancta,  we  have  a  procession  to  the  place  of  repose. 

In  Ordo  XIV,  which  is  ascribed  to  James  Cajetan, 
though  not  entirely  his  compilation,  we  find  as  regards 
the  Holy  Week  ceremonies  an  expansion  of  Ordo  X,  and 
much  of  it  is  incorporated  with  little  alteration.  There  is, 
however,  no  mention  of  the  procession  of  the  sacrament, 
and  the  whole  section,  "But  before  the  pope. .  .and  with 
a  canopy  over,"  is  omitted2.  The  explanation  does  not 
seem  to  be  very  difficult.  The  Ordo  belongs  to  the  earlier 
part  of  the  fourteenth  century,  to  the  beginning  of  the 
period  of  the  exile  of  the  papacy.  In  the  papal  chapel  or 
local  church  there  were  naturally  and  of  necessity  many 
modifications  of  customs  which  were  adapted  only  to  the 
basilicas  of  Rome,  and  the  method  of  reservation  was  also 
changed.  The  usual  place  for  the  reserved  sacrament  in 
the  pope's  church  was  now  no  longer  in  the  sacristy 
according  to  the  ancient  traditional  usage  of  Rome,  but 
at  or  over  the  altar  in  accordance  with  Gallican  custom. 
The  description  of  the  ceremonies  on  the  feast  of  the 
Annunciation  makes  this  point  quite  plain.   We  read : 

The  cardinal  bishop  who  served  the  pope  at  mass  does  not 
put  off  his  vestments  since  he  has  to  carry  the  boat  with  the 
incense  to  the  pope  at  the  proper  time,  and  to  cense  the  altar 

1  Mabillon,  vol.  n.  p.  101.  a  Mabillon,  vol.  ir.  p.  357. 

6—2 


84  ON  MAUNDY  THURSDAY  [ch. 

and  the  coffer  in  which  is  reserved  the  body  of  the  Lord,  and 
likewise  the  pope1. 

The  special  reservation  on  Maundy  Thursday  seems  to 
have  been  no  exception  to  the  rule,  and  there  would  thus 
be  less  scope  for  a  procession  of  the  sacrament,  so  that  we 
are  simply  told  that  the  hosts  are  to  be  "reverently 
reserved." 

In  Ordo  IF  we  find  the  procession  of  the  sacrament 
re-introduced.  This  document  is  founded  on  both  Ordines 
X  and  XIV  for  the  Holy  Week  ceremonial,  and  incor- 
porates large  extracts  from  both,  including  elements  of 
Ordo  X  which  were  omitted  in  Ordo  XIV.  It  represents  a 
later  development  of  the  ceremonies  at  Avignon  in  its 
earliest  draft,  but  the  text  which  has  survived  has  been 
modified  because  of  the  return  of  the  pope  to  Rome.  Yet 
the  account  of  the  procession  of  the  holy  sacrament  on 
Maundy  Thursday,  as  the  phraseology  shows,  is  a  descrip- 
tion of  Gallican  practice.   We  read: 

And  before  he  washes  his  hands  in  the  great  papal  bowls, 
let  the  pope  himself,  or  the  cardinal  bishop  who  serves  him  at 
mass,  carry  to  the  armariolum2  in  which  it  will  be  reserved  till 
the  morrow,  the  aforementioned  chalice  with  the  body  of 
Christ  covered  with  the  veil,  and  the  other  end  of  it  hanging 
from  his  left  shoulder,  holding  the  chalice  with  both  hands 
in  the  midst,  lights,  the  cross  and  incense  going  before  in 
procession  with  devotion.  And  when  it  is  put  away  he  genu- 
flects, and  censes  the  body  of  Christ,  and  then  returns  to  the 
altar,  and  washes  his  hands  according  to  custom3. 

This  account  is  evidently  based  on  that  of  Ordo  X,  but 
the  next  section  gives  a  modification  of  the  shorter  text 
of  Ordo  XIV.  One  important  change  in  ceremonial  had 
evidently  grown  up  at  Avignon.    In  Ordo  X  it  is  the 

1  Mabillon,  vol.  n.  p.  352.    Cf.  Ordo  XV,  pp.  473-522. 

2  The  chest,  near  the  high  altar  in  Gallican  churches,  in  which  are 
kept  the  vessels,  etc.,  for  mass. 

3  Mabillon,  vol.  II.  p.  483. 


vi]  ON  MAUNDY  THURSDAY  85 

junior  cardinal  priest  who  carries  the  holy  sacrament  to 
the  place  of  repose  on  Maundy  Thursday,  and  who  like- 
wise brings  it  back  on  Good  Friday.  In  Ordo  XIV ,  though 
nothing  is  said  about  the  carrying  of  the  sacrament  to  the 
place  of  repose,  it  is  the  same  person  who  brings  it  back  on 
Good  Friday.  In  Ordo  XV,  however,  we  find  it  is  the  pope 
himself,  or  the  celebrant,  who  performs  both  functions, 
and  there  is  a  note  on  the  date  of  the  change : 

Then  he  (the  pope)  goes  with  cross,  lights  and  incense  to 
the  armariolum  or  chest,  in  which  the  chalice  with  the  body  of 
Christ  was  reserved  from  the  previous  day.  And  the  same 
custom  has  existed  from  the  days  of  John  XXII,  Benedict  XII, 
Clement  VI,  Innocent  VI,  Urban  V,  Gregory  XI  and  Urban  VI, 
bishops  of  Rome,  to  the  present  time.  And  the  pope  himself 
goes  to  the  armariolum,  or  chest,  and  brings  the  body  of 
Christ  to  the  altar,... although  according  to  James  Cajetan  the 
junior  cardinal  priest  was  accustomed  to  carry  the  body  of 
Christ  to  the  altar  in  the  olden  days1. 

If  from  motives  of  reverence  the  pope  himself  must 
bear  the  sacrament  to  and  from  the  place  of  repose  on 
Maundy  Thursday  and  Good  Friday  with  all  due  honour, 
we  see  a  reason  why  after  the  return  to  Rome  there  was 
a  reversion  to  the  more  primitive  custom  which  still 
obtained  generally  elsewhere,  and  the  hosts  to  be  reserved 
were  retained  on  the  altar  until  the  end  of  the  service,  for 
it  would  not  be  considered  seemly  for  the  celebrant  to 
leave  the  altar  in  procession  with  a  long  train  of  attendants 
in  the  middle  of  mass.  We  shall  consider  the  documents 
bearing  on  this  matter  later. 

The  description  of  the  Holy  Week  ceremonies  in  the 
Carmelite  Ordinate  of  1312  is  in  some  points  similar  to  that 
of  Ordo  X,  and  on  examination  there  seems  to  be  a  literary 
connection,  though  it  is  obscured  by  modifications  and 
additions  of  later  date.   We  read: 

Thence  let  the  ministers  of  the  altar  and  the  rest  of  the 
1  Mabillon,  vol.  n.  p.  493. 


86  ON  MAUNDY  THURSDAY  |ch. 

brethren  communicate  according  to  the  manner  prescribed  in 
rubric  xlv.   Yet  let  consecrated  hosts  be  reserved,  one  for  the 
office  to  be  performed  on  the  morrow,  another  if  there  be  need 
for  the  sick.    The  Communion,  Dominns  Jesus.    The  com- 
munion being  finished  let  them  begin  vespers  at  once. ...The 
psalms  finished  let  the  deacon  take  the  chalice  with  the  conse- 
crated hosts  in  it,  covered  with  the  paten  and  a  corporal.... 
Magnificat  being  said,  when  the  deacon  begins  the  antiphon 
again  as  before,  let  him  immediately  bear  away  the  chalice 
with  the  sacrament  to  the  place  prepared  by  the  sacrist, 
candlebearers  preceding  him,  and  there  with  due  reverence 
and  a  light  let  it  be  reserved.  But  let  the  deacon  immediately 
return   to   the   altar.   The   antiphon   after  Magnificat  being 
finished  let  the  prelate  turn  to  the  congregation  and  say, 
Dominus  vobiscum,  then  Orcmus  and  the  final  collect,  Refecti. 
Dominus  vobiscum.  The  deacon,  Benedicamus  Domino,  or,  Ite 
missa  est,  where  the  chrism  is  consecrated1. 

The  Customs  of  Bee  (1290-1310)  likewise  order  the 
procession  of  the  sacrament  immediately  after  the  com- 
munion and  before  the  end  of  mass.   We  read : 

When  all  have  communicated  the  priest  and  the  deacon,  the 
cantor  also  assisting,  wrap  up  the  consecrated  hosts  in  corporals. 
Then  let  the  priest  offer  incense,  and  the  deacon,  all  genu- 
flecting, carry  them  away  with  the  greatest  care  to  the  ap- 
pointed place,  lay  brethren  going  before  with  candles  and  a 
censer.  Meanwhile  after  the  communion  let  the  cantor  of  the 
week  say  Dominus  Jesus.  And  when  the  levite  has  put  away 
the  hosts  let  him  offer  incense,  and  so  return  to  the  altar.  Then 
let  the  priest  say,  Dominus  vobiscum,  and  the  Post  Communion 
of  the  mass,  and  the  deacon,  Benedicamus  Domino,  as  on  a 
festival2. 

The  custom  of  removing  the  sacrament  from  the  altar 
before  the  end  of  mass  immediately  after  the  communion 
is  by  no  means  so  prominent   a   feature  in  documents 

1  Zimmerman,  Ordinaire  de  I'ordre  de  Notre  Dame  du  Mont  Carmel 
(131 2),  Bibliotheque  Liturgique,  vol.  xm.  pp.  164-5. 

2  Martene,  vol.  iv.  lib.  in.  cap.  xiii.  §  xlvi.  p.  129. 


vi]  ON  MAUNDY  THURSDAY  87 

describing  the  ceremonies  of  Maundy  Thursday  as  the 
procession  of  the  consecrated  oils  at  this  point,  and  the 
commoner  custom  was  that  by  which  the  sacrament 
remained  on  the  altar  till  the  end  of  mass,  when  the  pro- 
cession to  the  place  of  repose  followed  immediately,  or 
during  vespers.  The  solemn  removal  of  the  consecrated 
hosts  after  the  communion  for  use  on  the  morrow  seems 
to  have  been  limited  chiefly  to  monastic  churches,  where 
as  a  rule  in  the  absence  of  the  bishop  a  procession  of  the 
oils  was  impossible.  In  the  various  Roman  Ordines  the 
chrism  is  an  object  of  great  reverence,  and  Amalarius  in 
explaining  it  says: 

The  ampulla  with  the  chrism  signifies  in  a  manner  the  body 
of  the  Lord  which  He  took  of  the  Virgin  Mary1. 

It  was  not  therefore  unnatural,  particularly  as  a  pro- 
cession of  the  oils  was  in  so  many  churches  impossible, 
that  the  procession  of  the  sacrament,  which  was  the  true 
body  of  the  Lord,  should  take  the  place  of  that  of  the 
chrism  which  could  only  symbolise  it,  though  in  origin  as 
we  have  seen  the  two  were  in  no  sense  alternatives.  There 
was  also,  we  may  note,  a  similar  substitution  in  the  Palm 
Sunday  procession,  where  the  sacrament  came  to  take  the 
place  of  the  book  of  the  gospels2,  but  it  cannot  be  discussed 
here. 

It  will  be  interesting  to  note  the  development  of  the 
Maundy  Thursday  procession  of  the  host  in  the  later 
Roman  books.   In  the  first  printed  missal  of  1474  we  read : 

Today  the  priest  reserves  in  a  proper  and  convenient  place 
one  host  consecrated  for  the  following  day  on  which  there  is 
no  consecration,  or  also  more  if  it  shall  be  necessary  for  the 
sick.  But  the  whole  of  the  blood  he  consumes.  Then  the 
brethren  communicate  at  once,  and  afterwards  mass  is  finished3. 

1  De  Eccles.  Offic.  lib.  I.  12.    Hittorp,  col.  329. 

2  Compare  Hittorp,  col.  46  fL,  col.  246,  and  Martene.  vol.  iv.  lib.  ill. 
cap.  xii.  §§  xiii-xv,  pp.  119-20,  for  the  development  of  this  procession. 

3  Lippe,  Missale  Romanum  (H.B.S.),  vol.  1.  p.  158. 


88  ON  MAUNDY  THURSDAY  [ch. 

Nothing  is  said  how  or  when  the  host  is  put  away.  In 
the  pontifical  of  1497,  and  also  in  that  of  1503,  it  takes 
place  after  the  service.   We  read: 

He  proceeds  in  the  mass  up  to  the  communion  of  the  body 
and  blood  inclusively,  which  the  bishop  alone  receives.  And 
this  being  done,  the  deacon  puts  the  consecrated  hosts  to  be 
reserved  for  the  morrow  into  a  chalice  or  vessel  prepared  for 
the  purpose,  and  reverently  places  it  in  the  middle  of  the  altar... 
The  bishop  signs  the  altar  when  he  says  the  gospel  of  St  John.... 
And  the  deacon  who  has  ministered  to  the  bishop  at  the  altar 
puts  away  the  sacrament  consecrated  for  the  morrow  in  a 
place  arranged  suitably  for  the  purpose1. 

The  various  directions  in  the  book  of  ceremonies  of 
Patricius  and  Marcellus,  published  in  15 16,  about  which 
we  shall  have  occasion  to  speak  further  later  on,  show 
great  elaboration.  When  the  pope  is  present  but  not 
celebrating  we  read: 

A  little  before  the  communion  the  master  of  ceremonies 
brings  the  chalice  before  mentioned  from  the  credence  to  the 
altar  to  put  away  in  it  the  body  of  the  Lord  to  be  reserved. 
Having  made  his  communion  in  both  kinds  the  celebrant  before 
he  purifies  himself  reverently  puts  away  the  body  of  the  Lord 
to  be  reserved  in  the  chalice  last  prepared,  and  the  deacon 
covers  it  with  a  pall,  a  paten  being  placed  over  it,  and  a  silk 
veil,  and  reverently  places  it  in  the  middle  of  the  altar.  Then 
the  celebrant  purifies  himself  in  the  same  place,  and  reverence 
being  made  to  the  sacrament  without  mitre,  as  it  were  side- 
ways at  the  epistle  corner,  standing  there  with  face  turned 
to  the  people,  out  of  reverence  for  the  sacrament  he  washes 
his  hands  and  finishes  mass.... At  the  end  of  mass  Ite  missa  est 
is  said.  Mass  being  finished  the  pope  gives  the  benediction 
but  not  the  indulgences,  and  the  celebrant  signs  the  altar 
saying  Initium  sancti  evangelii,  and  goes  to  the  faldstool.... 
Then  the  pope  descends  to  the  altar,  where  kneeling  down  he 
reverently  censes  the  body  of  the  Lord  put  away  in  the  chalice 

1  ff.  clxxi.-clxxviii. 


vi]  ON  MAUNDY  THURSDAY  89 

for  the  morrow,  swinging  the  thurible  thrice.  Then  having 
made  his  reverence  he  devoutly  takes  the  chalice  with  the 
sacrament,  and  bareheaded  carries  it  under  the  canopy,  which 
the  senior  bishops  who  assist  the  pope  and  are  waiting  outside 
the  screen  of  the  chapel  in  their  copes,  carry  holding  their 
mitres  in  their  hands.  And  the  procession  is  in  this  order. — 
First  the  esquires  of  the  pope,  the  proctors  of  the  orders,  the 
advocates  with  their  secretaries,  the  chamberlains,  the  nobles 
and  the  orators,  the  singers  of  the  pope  chanting  the  hymn, 
Pange  lingua,  the  clerks  of  the  closet,  the  auditors,  two  acolytes 
with  candlesticks,  the  subdeacons,  one  of  them  in  a  tunicle 
while  the  other,  prepared  as  above,  carries  the  cross ;  after  the 
cross  the  abbots,  the  bishops,  the  archbishops,  the  orators, 
the  prelates,  the  vicechamberlain,  if  he  be  a  bishop,  other 
assistants  of  the  pope,  the  cardinal  deacons,  priests,  and 
bishops,  all  without  mitres,  then  all  the  torches,  which  follow, 
two  acolytes  with  candlesticks,  and  two  with  thuribles  censing 
the  sacrament  continuously,  then  the  pope  in  the  middle 
between  the  two  cardinal  deacon  assistants  under  a  canopy, 
as  we  have  said,  who  one  on  each  side  lift  up  and  hold  the 
border  of  the  pope's  cope.  Let  the  chief  layman  of  the  city 
bear  his  train.  Let  the  auditor  in  charge  of  the  mitre  in  the 
middle  between  two  private  chamberlains,  the  protonotaries 
and  others  without  vestments,  follow  the  pope.  When  the 
pope  is  at  the  place  where  the  sacrament  is  to  be  reposed  the 
cardinal  who  has  celebrated,  or  the  deacon  assistant  on  the 
right  of  the  pope,  takes  it  from  the  hands  of  the  pope,  and 
reposes  it  in  the  coffer,  and  the  pope  retiring  a  little  after 
making  a  reverence  puts  incense  into  the  censer,  the  cardinal 
priest  ministering  it,  and  censes  the  sacrament  again  as  before. 
Then  the  sacrist  closes  the  coffer,  and  gives  the  key  to  the 
cardinal  who  will  celebrate  on  the  morrow1. 

When  the  pope  himself  celebrates  we  are  told : 
He  puts  away  the  body  of  Christ  to  be  reserved  for  the 
morrow  into  the  chalice  prepared  before  he  washes  his  fingers. 

1  Sac.  Caer.  sive  Rit.  Eccles.  S.  Rom.  Eccles.  lib.  n.  c.  xliv.  Ed.  Catalani, 
vol.  11.  pp.  169-73. 


go  ON  MAUNDY  THURSDAY  [ch. 

In  olden  times  it  was  carried  at  once  to  the  sacristy,  which  is 
near  the  altar  of  the  blessed  Peter,  by  the  deacon  or  by  the 
cardinal  bishop  assistant.  But  according  to  the  decree  of 
Sixtus  it  can  be  carried  by  the  pope  at  the  end  of  mass,  all 
going  in  procession  with  candles  as  above;  and  when  the 
sacrament  is  reposed  and  the  candles  extinguished  they  will 
go  in  the  accustomed  manner  to  read  the  processes1' 2. 

Of  this  decree  of  Pope  Sixtus  IV  (f  1484)  Patricius 
and  Marcellus  speak  more  particularly  elsewhere : 

It  is  to  be  noted  that  before  Pope  Sixtus  the  processes  were 
accustomed  to  be  read  and  the  solemn  benediction  given  as  a 
rule  before  mass.  Then  mass  was  said  and  the  sacrament  was 
carried  after  the  communion  to  the  coffer  for  the  morrow  by 
the  deacon  according  to  the  common  rubric  and  sometimes  by 
the  celebrant,  the  ministers  of  the  altar  only  accompanying 
him  with  lights,  and  when  they  returned  mass  was  finished, 
and  at  the  end,  if  the  processes  had  not  been  read,  the  pontiff 
set  out  thither  in  procession  with  all  the  ranks  of  the  court  and 
they  were  read,  and  at  the  end  the  Mandatum  was  performed, 
as  has  been  said.  But  Sixtus  before-mentioned,  considering 
that  our  Saviour  cannot  be  venerated  with  worthy  enough 
praise,  for  this  reason  ordained  the  method  aforesaid3. 

When  the  pope  is  absent  the  procession  of  the  sacrament 
still  takes  place  after  the  communion.   We  read : 

If  the  pope  is  not  present  at  the  office  of  the  Thursday  all 
things  being  ready  for  the  celebration  of  mass  and  the  reserva- 
tion of  the  sacrament  for  the  morrow,  as  we  have  said  above, 
the  cardinal  who  is  about  to  celebrate  takes  his  vestments 
at  the  proper  time  and  performs  mass  with  the  accustomed 
ceremonies  until  he  has  made  his  communion.  Then  before  he 
purifies  himself  he  puts  away  the  sacrament  to  be  reserved  in 
the  chalice,  censes  it  and  carries  it  in  procession  to  the  place 
prepared  in  this  order. — The  esquires  of  the  cardinals,  and  if 
they  are  present  of  the  pope,  the  advocates,  the  secretaries, 

1  I.e.  the  excommunications  read  out  on  certain  days. 

2  c.  xlvu.  Catalani,  p.  188.  3  c.  xlvi.  §  3,  Catalan!,  pp.  186-7. 


vi]  ON  MAUNDY  THURSDAY  91 

the  chamberlains  go  first,  then  the  acolytes,  the  clerks  of  the 
closet,  the  auditors,  the  apostolic  subdeacons,  the  nobles,  the 
orators,  the  singers  chanting  Pange  lingua,  the  chaplains  of 
the  celebrant  with  torches,  the  master  of  ceremonies  with  the 
thurible,  or  two  masters  of  ceremonies  with  two  thuribles, 
censing  the  sacrament  continuously,  then  the  celebrant 
without  a  canopy  in  the  middle  between  the  deacon  and 
subdeacon,  and  following  after  him  without  vestments  the 
cardinal  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons,  and  the  prelates  in  their 
copes,  and  other  officials.  But  if  being  prepared  they  wish  to 
go  in  solemn  procession  the  order  described  above  when  the 
sacrament  is  carried  by  the  pope  should  be  observed,  except 
that  the  subdeacon  of  the  chapel  should  carry  the  cross,  and 
his  own  ministers  should  minister  to  the  cardinal,  and  not  the 
officials  of  the  pope.  The  sacrament  being  reposed  they  return 
in  the  same  manner  to  the  altar,  and  mass  is  finished,  and  the 
benediction  given,  and  the  indulgences  proclaimed  if  the  pope 
does  not  make  a  process1. 

The  directions  of  the  book  of  ceremonies  for  cardinals 
and  bishops  drawn  up  by  Paris  de  Grassis  (j  1528),  but 
not  published  till  1564,  require  the  procession  of  the 
sacrament  always  to  be  held  after  mass.   We  read: 

The  celebrant,  his  communion  made  in  both  kinds,  before 
he  purines  himself  puts  away  the  sacrament  within  the  bowl 
of  the  chalice  last  brought,  and  not  upon  the  paten,  and  covers 
the  chalice  first  with  the  pall,  then  with  the  paten  which  he 
used  at  mass,  and  the  deacon  covers  them  with  a  small  veil. 
At  the  end  of  mass  Ite  missa  est  is  said,  and  the  solemn  bene- 
diction is  given  by  the  cardinal,  but  the  indulgence  is  in  no  wise 
to  be  proclaimed,  because  when  the  sacrament  has  been  put 
away  it  will  be  proclaimed  in  the  place  of  the  sacrament,  as 
below.  The  celebrant  when  he  says  the  gospel,  In  principio,  does 
not  sign  the  altar  as  at  other  times.  And  he  puts  off  all  his 
vestments  at  the  side,  and  meanwhile  all  things  are  quietly 
prepared  for  the  procession,  and  the  torches  lighted  and  given 
to  the  chaplains  of  the  cardinal.  And  the  canons  take  their 
1  c.  xlviii.  Catalani,  p.  189. 


92  ON  MAUNDY  THURSDAY  [ch. 

customary  vestments,  and  two  who  are  to  be  the  ministers  a 
tunicle  and  dalmatic,  and  all  when  they  are  ready,  holding 
lighted  candles  in  their  hands,  come  one  "by  one  to  the  altar, 
and  there  first  of  all  genuflect.... Then  standing  with  biretta 
but  without  mitre  he  puts  incense  into  two  thuribles  without 
blessing  it... and  two  chaplains  hold  the  two  thuribles;  and  so 
he  goes  to  the  altar  in  the  accustomed  manner,  and  there  with 
bare  head  he  prays,  kneeling  upon  the  cushion:  then  taking 
one  of  the  thuribles  he  censes  the  sacrament  kneeling,  swinging 
the  censer  thrice.  Afterwards,  as  he  kneels,  the  veil  mentioned 
above  is  put  on  his  shoulders  by  the  ministers  and  fastened 
with  pins.  Then  by  the  same  canon-ministers  who  stand  ready 
the  sacrament  is  offered  to  him  still  kneeling,  without  any 
reverence  on  the  part  of  the  cardinal,  and  without  kissing  his 
hand.  And  when  it  has  been  offered  to  him  the  ministers 
genuflect  and  the  cardinal  rises  and  the  choir  sing  there  the 
hymn,  Pange  lingua. ...And  two  ministers  ready  for  the  purpose, 
one  on  each  side,  lift  up  the  front  borders  of  his  cope,  and  a 
chaplain  lifts  up  the  hem  of  his  vestment  in  the  front.  And  the 
chief  of  the  banner  bearers  of  the  people,  or  one  of  them,  right 
excellent  and  honourable,  but  a  layman,  bears  the  cardinal's 
train,  and  he  goes  devoutly  indeed  but  saying  nothing  under 
the  canopy,  which  as  I  said  the  mansionaries,  who  are  ready  for 
the  purpose,  carry.  And  all  the  clergy  with  candles  in  their 
hands  proceed  singing  the  afore-mentioned  hymn.  And  when 
the  cardinal  is  before  the  place  of  repose  of  the  sacrament  the 
canopy  is  left  outside  and  the  clergy  carry  it  back;  and  kneeling 
there  the  singers  begin  the  most  pious  song,  0  salutaris,  or, 
Verbam  caro,  or  as  they  will,  continuing  until  the  sacrament 
has  been  censed  by  the  cardinal1. 

In  the  post  Tridentine  missal  of  1570,  after  the  revision 
under  Pius  V,  directions  for  the  procession  of  the  host 
after  mass  have  been  added  to  the  older  rubrics.  We  read: 

Then  let  the  communion  take  place  and  afterwards  the  mass 
be  finished.  The  Communion,  Dominus  Jesus.  The  Post  Com- 

1   De  Caer.  Card,  et  Epis.  1564,  lib.  n.  46,  ff.  127-8. 


vi]  ON  MAUNDY  THURSDAY  93 

munion,  Refecti.  And  lie  missa  est  is  said.  Mass  being  finished 
torches  are  lighted  and  a  procession  is  made  in  the  accustomed 
manner.  The  celebrant  genuflects  before  the  altar,  puts  incense 
into  two  thuribles  and  with  one  censes  the  sacrament  thrice. 
Then  taking  the  chalice  with  the  sacrament  from  the  hand  of 
the  deacon  and  covering  it  with  the  ends  of  the  veil  with  which 
his  shoulders  are  covered  he  proceeds  in  the  middle  between 
the  deacon  on  the  right  and  the  subdeacon  on  the  left  under  a 
canopy,  two  acolytes  continuously  censing  the  sacrament  until 
they  come  to  the  place  prepared  where  it  is  to  be  reserved  for 
the  morrow.  Meantime  while  the  procession  is  made  the  hymn, 
Pange  lingua,  is  sung.  And  after  reposing  the  sacrament  and 
censing  it  again  let  vespers  be  said  in  choir1. 

In  the  Caeremoniale  Episcoporum  first  published  by 
Clement  VIII  in  1600  we  find  in  a  modified  form  the 
directions  of  Paris  de  Grassis  with  regard  to  the  ceremonial 
of  Maundy  Thursday.   We  read : 

And  having  received  the  communion  of  the  body  and  blood, 
before  he  purifies  himself  the  bishop  puts  away  the  sacrament 
within  the  chalice,  which  the  deacon  covers  with  a  pall  and  the 
paten  placed  over  it,  and  finally  with  a  silk  veil,  and  reverently 
places  it  in  the  middle  of  the  altar.... Ite  missa  est  being  said 
the  bishop  without  mitre,  standing  on  the  epistle  side,  will 
give  the  solemn  benediction,  but  the  indulgences  will  be  pro- 
claimed in  the  place  where  the  sacramentis  reposed.  When 
after  mass  the  bishop  is  about  to  say  the  gospel,  In  principio, 
he  will  not  make  the  sign  of  the  cross  over  the  altar  as  at  other 
times,  and  when  this  is  finished,  returning  to  his  throne  he  puts 
off  the  sacred  vestments  as  far  as  but  exclusive  of  the  stole, 
and  puts  on  a  white  cope.  Meanwhile  the  canons  when  they 
are  ready  take  lighted  candles,  and  the  senior  of  the  beneficed, 
or  of  the  mansionaries  who  are  ready  in  copes,  take  the  posts 
of  the  canopy.  The  bishop,  having  put  on  his  cope  and  mitre, 
standing  puts  incense  into  two  thuribles  without  blessing  it, 
and  the  priest  assistant  who  ministers  it  not  kissing  the  hand 

1  p.  160.  Lippe,  vol.  1.  p.  158,  vol.  11.  p.  73. 


94  ON  MAUNDY  THURSDAY  [ch. 

of  the  bishop  as  at  other  times.  And  this  done  he  returns  to 
the  altar  and  there  with  bare  head,  kneeling  upon  the  cushion, 
taking  one  of  the  two  said  thuribles  from  the  assistant  priest 
censes  the  sacrament  with  a  triple  swing.  Then  the  veil  is  put 
over  his  shoulders  and  fastened  with  pins,  and  the  deacon 
assistant  and  no  other  with  due  reverences  takes  the  sacrament 
from  the  altar,  and  standing  offers  it  to  the  bishop  kneeling, 
without  any  reverence  towards  the  bishop  and  without  kissing 
him,  though  after  he  has  left  it  in  the  hands  of  the  bishop  he 
genuflects.  And  the  bishop  rises  with  the  sacrament  and 
immediately  the  singers  begin  the  hymn,  Pange  lingua.  The 
assistant  ministers  one  on  each  side  lift  up  the  front  borders 
of  his  cope,  and  the  master  of  ceremonies  or  some  chaplain, 
when  the  bishop  ascends  or  descends  steps,  lifts  up  the  edge  of 
his  inner  vestment  in  the  front,  and  some  right  worthy  layman, 
or  someone  else  who  is  present  according  to  the  custom  of  the 
place,  lifts  up  his  cope  at  the  back.  The  bishop  enters  under  the 
canopy  carrying  the  sacrament  devoutly.  The  canons  being 
ready  with  candles  go  before  in  the  accustomed  order.  When 
they  have  arrived  at  the  chapel  where  the  sacrament  is  to  be 
placed  the  canopy  is  left  outside  and  the  singers  in  pious  and 
devout  song  sing  0  salutaris  or  Tantum  ergo  until  the  sacrament 
has  been  reposed  by  the  bishop  and  censed.  When  the  bishop 
is  before  the  highest  step  of  the  altar  let  a  deacon,  kneeling 
without  kissing  his  hand,  take  the  sacrament  from  his  hand  as 
he  stands,  and  put  it  down  on  the  altar  in  the  place  prepared, 
covering  the  chalice  with  a  veil  all  round.  And  meanwhile  the 
bishop  retiring  a  little  puts  incense  into  one  of  the  thuribles 
standing,  and  kneeling  again  he  will  cense  the  sacrament  with 
a  triple  swing,  and  ascending  to  the  altar  and  kissing  it  with 
a  genuflection  will  give  the  solemn  benediction,  standing 
without  mitre  on  the  epistle  side,  holding  his  pastoral  staff 
while  he  says  Pater  et  Filius;  and  the  priest  assistant  will  then 
proclaim  the  indulgences  of  forty  days  in  the  accustomed 
manner,  and  the  canons  put  off  their  vestments,  and  return  into 
the  choir  for  vespers1. 

1  Lib.  ii.  c.  23,  pp.  227-30. 


vi]  ON  MAUNDY  THURSDAY  95 

The  directions  of  the  modern  Caeremoniale  Episcoporum 
are  almost  verbally  identical. 

In  the  missal  of  1604,  after  the  revision  of  Clement  VIII, 
practically  the  rubrics  of  the  modern  missal  appear,  few 
changes  having  been  made  since.   We  read: 

Today  the  priest  consecrates  two  hosts  one  of  which  he  con- 
sumes, the  other  he  reserves  for  the  following  day  on  which 
the  sacrament  is  not  consecrated.  He  reserves  also  other 
consecrated  particles  if  there  be  need  for  the  sick.  But  the 
whole  of  the  blood  he  consumes  and  before  the  ablution  of 
his  fingers  he  puts  the  reserved  host  into  another  chalice  which 
the  deacon  covers  with  the  pall  and  paten,  and  over  it  he 
spreads  the  veil,  and  places  it  in  the  middle  of  the  altar.  Then 
the  communion  is  made,  and  mass  is  finished.  And  the  priest 
genuflects  whenever  he  approaches  or  departs  from  the  middle 
of  the  altar,  or  crosses  before  the  sacrament  reserved  in  the 
chalice,  and  when  he  has  to  say  Dominns  vobiscum  he  does 
not  turn  towards  the  people  in  the  middle  of  the  altar  that  he 
may  not  turn  his  back  upon  the  sacrament,  but  on  the  gospel 
side,  and  at  the  end  he  gives  the  blessing  from  the  same  place. 
The  Communion,  Dominus  Jesus.  The  Post  Communion,  Refecti. 
And  Ite  missa  est  is  said.  The  blessing  is  given,  and  the  gospel 
of  St  John  is  read,  at  the  beginning  of  which  the  priest  does 
not  sign  the  altar  but  only  himself.  Today  let  a  suitable  place 
be  prepared  in  some  chapel  of  the  church,  or  on  an  altar, 
and  let  it  be  adorned  as  fairly  as  possible  with  veils  and  lights 
that  the  chalice  with  the  reserved  host  as  above  may  be  reposed 
there.  And  mass  being  finished  torches  are  lighted  and  a 
procession  is  made  in  the  accustomed  manner,  but  with  another 
subdeacon  who  is  in  readiness  bearing  the  cross.  The  celebrant 
wearing  a  white  cope  stands  before  the  altar  and  puts  incense 
into  two  thuribles  without  blessing  it.  Then  genuflecting  in 
the  middle  with  one  of  them  he  censes  the  sacrament  thrice, 
and  taking  the  chalice  with  the  sacrament  from  the  hand  of 
the  deacon  who  stands,  and  covering  it  with  the  ends  of  the 
veil  with  which  his  shoulders  are  covered,  he  proceeds  in  the 


96  ON  MAUNDY  THURSDAY  [ch. 

middle  between  the  same  deacon  on  the  right  and  the  subdeacon 
on  the  left  under  the  canop}',  two  acolytes  continuously  censing 
the  sacrament,  until  they  come  to  the  place  prepared  where  it 
is  to  be  reserved  for  the  morrow.  Meantime  while  the  pro- 
cession is  made  the  hymn,  Pange  lingua,  is  sung.  And  when 
they  have  come  to  the  place  prepared  the  deacon  genuflects 
and  takes  the  chalice  with  the  sacrament  from  the  priest  who 
stands,  and  puts  it  first  on  the  altar  where  it  is  censed  by  the 
priest  kneeling  as  above.  Then  he  reposes  it  in  the  coffer  and 
vespers  are  said  without  chant  in  choir1. 

A  few  notes  on  the  Ambrosian  and  Mozarabic  customs 
on  Maundy  Thursday  may  finish  our  enquiry. 

At  Milan  in  the  twelfth  century  according  to  the  Ordo 
of  Beroldus  the  sacrament  remained  on  the  altar  until  the 
end  of  mass.    We  read  : 

Let  the  archbishop  communicate  with  the  clergy  and 
people.  So  let  mass  be  finished  according  to  custom.  After- 
wards. .  .let  the  pontiff  go  into  the  sacristy,  where  he  bids  the 
subdeacons  diligently  guard  the  sacrament  of  the  body  and 
blood  of  the  Lord2. 

The  modern  Ambrosian  missal  has  adopted  the  Roman 
rubrics,  and  they  are  practically  identical  with  those  of 
the  missal  of  1604,  so  that  the  sacrament  is  still  not 
removed  until  the  close  of  the  service. 

The  early  Mozarabic  books  make  no  mention  of  any 
reservation  of  the  sacrament  on  Maundy  Thursday.  In  the 
Missale  Mixtum  of  Cardinal  Ximenes  of  1500  we  find  an 
elaborate  procession  of  the  host,  with  bell-ringing  and  the 
strewing  of  branches,  and  it  follows  the  priest's  communion 
immediately3.  The  order  in  many  ways  is  similar  to  that 
of  Patricius  and  Marcellus,  and  from  a  literary  point  of 
view  is  probably  derived  ultimately  from  the  same  source 

We  have  now  traced  out  the  development  of  the  pro- 

1  pp-  93-4- 

2  Magistretti,  Beroldus,  p.  104. 

3  Lesley,  Missale  Mixtum,  p.  165.    P.L.  lxxxv.  col.  418-9. 


vi]  ON  MAUNDY  THURSDAY  97 

cession  of  the  blessed  sacrament  on  Maundy  Thursday 
from  its  commencement  to  the  present  day.  Our  enquiry 
seems  to  have  made  it  clear  that  except  at  Rome,  or  in 
the  papal  chapel  at  certain  periods,  the  custom  was  as  a 
rule  that  the  holy  sacrament  which  was  to  be  reserved 
from  the  mass  of  Maundy  Thursday  for  use  on  Good 
Friday,  should  remain  on  the  altar  until  the  end  of  mass, 
in  accordance  with  what  appears  to  have  been  the  primi- 
tive custom  on  all  occasions,  and  then  put  away,  with 
little  or  no  ceremonial  in  the  earliest  days,  and  afterwards 
with  very  much.  The  contrary  Roman  custom,  which  was 
imitated  in  other  places,  and  particularly  among  the 
religious  orders,  as  the  Carmelites  and  Augustinians,  seems 
to  have  descended  from  the  practice  of  sending  the  Fer- 
mentum  before  the  end  of  the  station  mass  to  the  titular 
churches  of  Rome  for  use  when  mass  was  celebrated  by 
another  than  the  pope,  and  on  Maundy  Thursday  for  the 
communion  of  the  faithful  throughout  the  city  on  Good 
Friday.  New  ideas  at  Rome  after  the  return  from  Avignon, 
and  particularly  the  notions  that  out  of  honour  to  our 
Lord  the  procession  should  be  a  very  elaborate  ceremony, 
and  that  the  pope  or  celebrant  only  should  carry  the 
sacrament  on  this  occasion,  brought  about  a  different 
practice,  and  Sixtus  IV  ordained  that  when  the  pope  was 
present  the  procession  of  the  host  to  the  place  of  repose 
should  not  take  place  until  mass  was  finished,  and  that 
the  pope  himself  should  bear  the  host.  Consequently,  at 
a  later  date,  it  became  once  more  the  custom  at  Rome,  as 
in  other  places,  whoever  was  the  celebrant,  that  the 
sacrament  should  remain  on  the  altar  until  the  end  of  the 
mass,  and  there  was  thus  though  not  intentionally  a 
reversion  to  primitive  practice. 


L.  E. 


CHAPTER  VII 
IN  LATER  DAYS  IN  THE  WEST 

WE  are  now  in  a  position  to  return  to  a  further  con- 
sideration of  the  rules  of  the  church  in  the  West, 
and  particularly  those  of  later  times,  and  in  liturgical 
documents  of  different  sorts,  for  dealing  with  what  was 
left  of  the  consecrated  elements  after  the  communion, 
whether  intended  for  the  purpose  of  reservation,  or  because 
too  much  was  consecrated. 

In  the  letter  of  the  pseudo  Clement  already  noted  we 
have  the  foundation  of  the  later  rules.  According  to  the 
usual  translation  it  reads : 

But  if  any  (hosts)  remain  let  them  not  be  reserved  until  the 
morrow,  but  be  carefully  consumed  by  the  clerks  with  fear 
and  trembling1. 

In  the  Synodical  Admonition  ascribed  to  Leo  IV  (847- 
55),  and  at  any  rate  belonging  to  about  his  period,  though 
probably  Gallican  in  origin,  this  direction  becomes : 

Consume  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord  with  fear  and 
reverence2. 

By  itself  this  injunction  is  perhaps  ambiguous,  but  the 
visitation  articles  of  Regino  of  Prum  (f  915)  bring  out  the 
original  meaning.    We  read: 

Mass  being  finished  (expleta  missa),  does  the  priest  himself 
with  fear  and  reverence  consume  what  is  left  of  the  body  and 
blood  of  the  Lord3? 

The   exact   meaning   of   "mass   being   finished"    may 

1  P.O.  1.  col.  484.    See  p.  12.  2  P.L.  cxxxn.  col.  456. 

3  P.L.  cxxxu.  col.  190. 


ch.  vii]        LATER  DAYS  IN  THE  WEST  99 

perhaps  be  determined  by  the  occurrence  of  the  same 
phrase  in  another  of  the  same  articles  of  enquiry,  where  it 
is  the  equivalent  of  "post  missam"  in  the  Admonition: 

Mass  being  finished,  does  he  distribute  eulogiae  to  the  folk 
from  the  oblations  which  are  offered  by  the  people  on  Sundays 
and  feast  days1? 

The  eulogiae  were  not  distributed  until  the  conclusion 
of  the  liturgy,  and  so  unless  the  phrase  is  used  in  two 
different  senses  in  the  same  articles,  the  probability  is  that 
the  consumption  of  the  remains  also  took  place  when  mass 
was  completely  ended;  and  this  agrees  with  the  other 
evidence  about  the  earlier  days.  In  other  documents,  how- 
ever, we  do  sometimes  find  "expleta  missa"  used  with  a 
wider  meaning,  as  in  the  Appendix  to  Roman  Ordo  I  for 
the  consecration2,  but  this  would  not  fit  the  context  in 
either  of  Regino's  articles. 

In  the  description  of  mass  given  by  John  of  Avranches 
(c.  1065)  the  consumption  of  the  remains  takes  place 
before  the  end  of  the  service.   We  read: 

The  particle  which  remained  in  the  chalice  let  the  priest 
consume,  and  afterwards  let  him  give  the  chalice  to  the  deacon 
to  cleanse  and  consume  what  is  left;  and  let  him  carry  away 
the  chalice  with  the  paten  to  the  left  corner  of  the  altar,  and 
there  receive  part  himself  and  give  part  to  the  subdeacon.... 
After  the  cleansing  of  paten  and  chalice  let  an  acolyte  hold 
each  wrapped  in  a  napkin  until  the  end  of  the  first  Post  Com- 
munion3. 

The  earlier  Roman  Ordines,  apart  from  the  mention  of 
the  piece  left  on  the  altar  till  the  end  of  mass,  say  nothing 
about  what  is  done  with  the  remains  of  the  sacrament 
after  the  communion,  but  the  suggestion  is  that  they 
remain  on  the  altar  till   the  conclusion  of  the  service. 

1  P.L.  cxxxn.  col.  190.   Cf.  col.  457. 

2  Mabillon,  vol.  n.  p.  32.    See  pp.  54,  75  above. 

3  Dc  Off.  Eccles.,  P.L.  cxlvii.   col.  37. 

7—2 


ioo  LATER  DAYS  IN  THE  WEST  [ch. 

Perhaps  there  may  be  a  reference  to  a  different  custom  in 
the  Gallican  Ordo  VI  (eleventh  century?)  where  we  read: 

The  same  archdeacon  must  be  very  careful  that  nothing  of 
the  blood  or  body  of  Christ  remain  in  chalice  or  paten1. 

Unfortunately  nothing  is  said  about  the  way  in  which  he 
is  to  carry  out  this  duty. 

At  a  later  date  Durandus  (f  1296),  commenting  on  a 
Roman  Ordo,  gives  more  precise  information : 

And  then  the  subdeacon  consumes  the  rest  of  the  blood  with 
the  particle  put  into  the  chalice. ...The  part  dipped  in  the 
chalice... the  lord  pope  does  not  receive... but  the  ministers 
consume  it... and  in  particular  the  subdeacon  consumes  it  for 
him,  because  he  communicates  last,  and  it  is  the  business  of 
the  last  to  consume  the  remains  and  purify  the  chalice2. 

In  an  Ordo,  printed  by  Martene,  giving  the  duties  of 
the  cardinal  deacon  on  feast  days,  and  in  an  Ordo  printed 
by  Gattico,  both  presumably  of  the  fourteenth  century, 
though  based  on  earlier  materials,  we  read : 

And  when  all  the  communicants  have  received  the  blood, 
the  cardinal  deacon  gives  the  reed  to  the  subdeacon  for  him 
to  suck  at  both  ends,  and  afterwards  the  chalice  to  consume 
what  is  left  over  of  the  blood  of  Christ3. 

The  rules  for  the  general  communion  on  Easter  Day  in 
Ordo  XV  incorporate  the  same  directions.   We  read: 

It  is  to  be  noted  that  our  lord  the  pope  on  this  day  is  not 
accustomed  to  wash  his  fingers  with  wine,  nor  to  consume  the 
wine,  as  he  is  accustomed,  after  he  has  communicated  the 
subdeacon,  but  when  all  have  communicated.  And  not  only 
so :  the  subdeacon  does  not  drink  the  wine  until  all  have  com- 
municated, and  this  because,  if  anything  of  the  body  of  Christ 
remain  on  the  paten,  the  pope  alone  ought  to  consume  it,  and, 

1  Mabillon,  vol.  11.  pp.  75-6. 

2  Rationale  Div.  Off.  lib.  iv.  cap.  liv.  De  Communions  Sacerdotis, 
f.  lxxvii. 

3  Martene,  vol.  1.  lib.  1.  cap.  iv.  Art.  XII.  p.  247.  Gattico,  Acta  Caerem. 
vol.  1.  p.  42. 


vii]  LATER  DAYS  IN  THE  WEST  101 

if  anything  of  the  blood  of  Christ  in  the  chalice,  the  subdeacon 
ought  to  consume  it.. ..And  when  all  the  communicants  have 
received  the  blood  the  lord  deacon  gives  the  tube  or  reed  to 
the  subdeacon  for  him  to  suck  at  both  ends,  and  afterwards 
the  chalice  to  consume  what  is  left  over  of  the  blood  of  Christ1. 

All  the  evidence  with  regard  to  details  of  what  was  done 
at  Rome  with  the  remains  of  the  consecrated  elements  is 
comparatively  late,  and  unfortunately  there  is  very  little 
information  about  earlier  days  to  be  found  elsewhere.  In 
Ulrich's  Constitutions  of  Cluny  (c.  1080)  we  read: 

All  being  communicated  who  wish  and  last  of  all  the  sub- 
deacon, who  always  by  custom  ought  to  communicate  at  the 
high  mass,  except  on  those  days  on  which  only  one  host  is 
consecrated,  and  when  he  is  communicated  who  holds  the 
scutella2,  if  the  body  of  the  Lord  remain  over,  or  if  it  seem 
good  to  him,  it  is  covered  with  the  scutella3. 

What  exactly  is  done  with  the  remains  we  are  not  told 
here,  but  the  writer  makes  it  clear  in  his  description  of 
what  has  been  the  previous  custom  on  Good  Friday,  and 
what  he  wishes  for  the  future : 

Formerly  there  was  great  care  that  after  all  had  communi- 
cated whatever  was  left  over  should  be  consumed  by  the  same 
priests  who  brought  it  in,  with  great  reverence  and  attention, 
and  nothing  at  all  remained  until  the  morrow.  And  indeed 
I  never  knew  it  otherwise,  although,  to  speak  generally,  there 
may  be  another  custom  in  other  churches — but  about  that  we 
are  not  here  greatly  concerned — that  on  this  day  as  on  another, 
if  anything  be  left  over  from  the  communicants,  it  is  reserved4. 

The  same  custom  was  observed  on  Good  Friday,  and  it 
would  seem  also  on  other  days,  at  the  monastery  of  St 

1  Mabillon,  vol.  11.  pp.  506-7. 

2  A  tray  or  dish  used  to  catch  any  small  fragments  of  the  sacrament 
of  the  Lord's  body  which  might  fall  in  the  act  of  communion. 

3  Martene,  vol.  iv.  lib.  11.  cap.  iv.  §  xv.  p.  63. 

4  P.L.  cxlix.  col.  662. 


102  LATER  DAYS  IN  THE  WEST  [ch. 

Benignus  at  Dijon,  the  constitutions  of  which  were  based 
on  those  of  Cluny.   We  read  on  Good  Friday: 

Then  the  priest  communicates  first  from  the  Sancta,  and 
afterwards  distributes  to  all  in  order.  Whatever  is  left  over 
of  the  body  of  the  Lord  is  taken  up  carefully  by  the  priests  who 
perform  all  the  service  in  church  on  this  day,  and  consumed1. 

On  other  days  we  are  told  similarly: 

If  the  body  of  the  Lord  be  left  over,  or  if  it  seem  good  to  him, 
he  gives  it  to  the  subdeacon  to  consume,  or  he  puts  it  away  in  a 
pyx2. 

We  see  here  the  original  meaning  of  the  words  "if  it 
seem  good  to  him,"  which  have  become  meaningless  in 
Ulrich's  version  of  the  constitutions,  according  to  which 
what  is  left  is  always  reserved,  and  no  mention  is  made  of 
its  being  consumed.  We  find  also  an  earlier  custom  sur- 
viving at  Dijon  with  regard  to  the  remains  in  the  chalice. 
According  to  Ulrich  the  priest  alone  communicates  with 
the  blood,  save  by  intinction ;  in  the  Constitutions  of  Dijon 
we  read  much  as  in  the  Roman  Ordines  quoted  above : 

All  those  being  finished  who  are  to  receive  the  blood  of 
the  Lord,  the  subdeacon  also  approaches  and  receives  it.  The 
deacon  also  afterwards,  lifting  the  tube  from  the  chalice  and 
putting  it  to  his  mouth,  when  he  has  emptied  it  of  the  blood  by 
sucking  it  at  both  ends,  commits  it  to  the  subdeacon  to  keep 
for  the  time,  and  he  himself  consumes  the  rest  of  the  blood, 
with  that  particle  of  the  Lord's  body  which  the  priest  had  put 
into  it,  from  the  front  part  of  the  chalice3. 

In  the  Constitutions  of  Hirshau  compiled  by  the  abbot 
William  from  those  of  Cluny  towards  the  end  of  the 
eleventh  century  we  find  a  curious  modification  of  the 
rules  for  the  communion  of  the  subdeacon  and  the  minister 
who  held  the  scutella,  suggesting  that  the  compiler  did  not 

1  Martene,  vol.  iv.  lib.  in.  cap.  xiv.  §  xlii.  p.  140. 
'   Martene,  vol.  iv.  lib.  11.  cap.  iv.  §  xv.  p.  64. 
8  Martene,  vol.  iv.  lib.  n.  cap.  iv.  §  xv.  p.  64. 


vii]  LATER  DAYS  IN  THE  WEST  103 

understand  the  document  he  was  using  as  the  basis  of  his 
own  work.   We  read: 

And  then  the  subdeacon  receives  the  body  of  the  Lord  and 
after  him  all  who  wish,  and  last  of  all  the  minister  who  holds 
the  scutella,  if  any  remain.... After  all  who  have  received  the 
body  of  the  Lord  have  communicated  with  the  Lord's  blood 
it  is  brought  last  of  all  to  the  minister  that  he  too  may  drink 
of  the  same  blood  of  the  Lord,  but  only  if  he  has  received  the 
body  of  the  Lord,  for  by  custom  he  does  not  communicate 
unless  some  part  of  the  body  of  the  Lord  remain  over1. 

According  to  Ulrich's  Constitutions  the  consecrated 
hosts  left  over  from  the  communion  are  reserved  for 
another  day.  In  another  place  he  gives  detailed  instruc- 
tions about  the  renewal  of  the  reserved  sacrament : 

It  should  be  known  also  that  the  body  of  the  Lord  is  changed 
every  Sunday.  While  the  priest  proceeds  to  the  pax  the  newly 
consecrated  is  placed  by  the  deacon  in  a  cork  pyx,  and  what 
was  consecrated  the  previous  Sunday  is  taken  out  and  divided 
by  the  same  deacon,  and  the  brethren  thence  communicated; 
only  the  two  particles  of  that  host  which  the  priest  divided  are 
not  changed.  And  while  the  familiar  psalms2  are  being  said 
after  terce  the  deacon  takes  the  aforesaid  pyx  from  the  dove 
which  hangs  continually  over  the  altar,  wiping  well  the  dust 
from  the  outside  with  a  small  linen  cloth,  and  places  it  upon  the 
right  corner  of  the  altar  under  a  veil,  and  when  mass  is  finished 
puts  it  back  in  the  same  place3. 

In  the  Cistercian  rules  of  the  twelfth  century  the 
directions  for  reserving  the  sacrament  and  the  disposal  of 
the  remains  are  combined.   We  read: 

And  let  him  thus  receive  the  body  of  the  Lord  over  the 
chalice,  and  then  the  blood.  And  then  having  put  down  the 
chalice  uncovered  upon  the  corporal  let  him  turn  to  the  right 

1  P.L.  cl.  col.  1013-4. 

2  Additional  psalms  said  after  the  regular  office  on  behalf  of  bene- 
factors. 

3  P.L.  cxlix.  col.  722-3. 


104  LATER  DAYS  IN  THE  WEST  [ch. 

corner  of  the  altar,  and  putting  down  there  the  paten  with  the 
hosts,  let  him  take  the  host  from  the  vessel  put  ready  b}'  the 
deacon,  and  place  it  upon  the  paten,  and  one,  or  more  when  it 
shall  be  necessary,  of  those  which  are  there  let  him  put  away 
in  the  vessel :  but  let  this  be  done  only  on  Sundays  and  Maundy 
Thursday.  And  let  the  vessel  be  put  down  on  the  altar  until 
after  mass.  This  being  done  let  the  priest  communicate  the 
deacon  and  subdeacon  from  the  third  part  (of  his  host),  and 
then  from  the  other  hosts  the  rest  of  those  about  to  communi- 
cate. But  let  him  be  as  careful  as  possible  that  no  other 
part  of  the  Lord's  body  remain. ...If  any  of  the  blood  be  left 
over  let  him  (the  deacon)  drink  it  from  the  chalice  after  he  has 
returned  the  tube  to  the  subdeacon.  And  before  he  returns  the 
tube  let  him  empty  it  as  far  as  possible  of  the  blood  of  the  Lord 
by  sucking  it  at  both  ends,  and  return  the  chalice  to  the 
priest  without  kissing  his  hand. ...But  before  the  priest  receives 
the  chalice  let  him  place  in  the  vessel  any  whole  hosts  which 
have  been  left  over  from  those  who  communicated1. 

In  a  thirteenth  century  version  of  the  Cistercian  Customs 
belonging  to  the  convent  of  Val  des  Choux  in  Burgundy 
we  find  considerable  alteration  and  curtailment,  due 
chiefly  to  the  fact  that  in  1198  the  General  Chapter  had 
limited  the  communion  in  both  species  to  the  deacon  and 
subdeacon  only2,  but  the  rule  that  the  hosts  left  over 
should  remain  on  the  altar  until  after  mass  is  still  retained3. 
The  earliest  evidence  of  a  different  custom  seems  to  be  in 
the  rules  for  the  Dominican  mass  belonging  to  the  thir- 
teenth century,  and  there  we  find  that  the  deacon  not  only 
brings  the  reserved  sacrament  to  the  altar  during  the 
service,  but,  unless  the  communion  is  deferred,  carries  it 
away  again  likewise,  the  last  relic  of  the  old  rule  with 
regard  to  the  third  part  of  the  priest's  obley  having  thus 
disappeared.   We  read: 

1  Martene,  vol.  IV.  lib.  11.  cap.  iv.  §  xv.  pp.  64-5. 

2  S6jalon.  Nomasticon  Cisterc.  (Lib.  Antiq.  Definit.),  p.  406. 
*  Birch,  Ordinate  Conventus  Vallis  Cauliiim,  p.  40. 


vii]  LATER  DAYS  IN  THE  WEST  105 

When  the  time  of  communion  has  arrived  let  the  deacon, 
candlebearers  going  before  him  with  candles,  bring  the  afore- 
mentioned pyx  with  the  body  of  the  Lord,  and  open  it  upon  the 
altar.... And  it  should  be  known  that  if  there  is  a  great  company 
present  awaiting  the  end  of  mass,  the  communion  can  be  put 
off  until  after  mass,  if  it  seems  good  to  the  prior,  except  on 
Maundy  Thursday.  Otherwise  it  must  be  finished  before  the 
communion  is  said. ...But  if  before  the  end  of  the  communion 
the  priest  sees  that  too  great  a  number  of  hosts  has  been 
prepared  he  can  give  them  to  the  brethren  two  at  a  time,  so 
that  he  need  not  reserve  too  great  a  number.  But  let  those 
which  remain,  being  placed  by  the  priest  in  the  pyx,  be  carried 
with  honour  to  the  proper  place  by  the  deacon,  candlebearers 
going  before,  and  the  brethren  making  a  genuflexion1. 

The  Carmelites  likewise  according  to  the  13 12  constitu- 
tions removed  the  hosts  for  reservation  from  the  altar 
after  the  communion  and  before  the  end  of  mass.  We 
read: 

Let  the  priest  also  after  receiving  the  body  of  Christ  and 
before  the  reception  of  the  blood  consume  likewise  the  conse- 
crated hosts  brought  to  him  by  the  deacon,  putting  two  others 
into  the  pyx,  after  which  the  pyx  being  closed,  let  the  deacon, 
first  genuflecting,  carry  back  the  sacrament  to  its  place, 
candlebearers  going  before  him  as  before.... But  if  on  the  day 
when  the  sacrament  has  to  be  renewed  the  brethren  are  to  be 
communicated  the  priest  can  give  the  reserved  hosts  upon 
the  altar  in  communicating  them,  placing  others  in  their  place 
as  before.  And  then  after  the  communion  of  the  brethren  the 
deacon  can  carry  back  the  sacrament  to  its  place  as  above2. 

The  Carmelite  rule  for  the  removal  of  the  sacrament  to 
be  reserved  is  thus  the  same  on  ordinary  days  as  on 
Maundy  Thursday.  That  there  should  be  a  tendency  to 
assimilate  the  practice  of  Maundy  Thursday  and  other 

1  Missale  Conventuale.   Legg,  Tracts  on  the  Mass  (H.B.S.),  pp.  85-6. 

2  Zimmerman,  Ordinaire  de  I'ordre  de  Notre  Dame  du  Mont  Carme 
(1312),  xliv.  p.  87. 


106  LATER  DAYS  IN  THE  WEST  [ch. 

days  is  quite  natural,  and  we  can  hardly  regard  this  as 
independent  of  the  custom  on  that  day  which  we  have 
already  noticed  as  being  connected  with  that  described  in 
Ordo  X.  The  ceremonial  of  the  Dominicans  at  mass  is 
closely  allied  with  that  of  the  Carmelites,  and  they  appear 
to  have  a  common  origin. 

It  may  be  useful  to  quote  other  rules  of  various  dates 
which  indicate  the  time  of  the  removal  from  the  altar  of 
the  hosts  which  are  to  be  reserved.  With  the  Carthusians 
(c.  1 130)  the  customary  place  of  reservation  was  over  the 
high  altar,  and  so  it  is  scarcely  surprising  that  the  sacra- 
ment should  be  put  away  immediately.   We  read : 

And  on  Sundays  the  deacon,  making  a  genuflexion  on  the 
right  side  of  the  altar,  puts  down  on  the  paten  the  host  which 
was  reserved  from  the  preceding  Sunday,  and  putting  back 
another  whole  host  instead  of  it  in  the  pyx  restores  the  pyx  to 
its  place,  and  communicates  with  the  first  mentioned  host  on 
his  knees  at  the  right  corner  of  the  altar.  And  whoever  takes 
the  p}'x  in  which  is  the  bod}'  of  the  Lord,  and  whenever,  in 
taking  it  from  behind  the  altar  he  genuflects1. 

The  directions  in  the  Soissons  ritual  are  similar,  though 
as  the  place  of  reservation  is  no  longer  behind  the  altar 
but  in  a  hanging  pyx,  the  action  is  not  so  simple: 

Meanwhile  let  the  priest  proceed  as  far  as  the  communion 
and  then  let  the  deacon  bring  to  him  the  vessel  which  hangs 
over  the  altar  in  which  the  encharist  is  reserved  from  Sunday 
to  Sunday.  And  let  the  priest,  receiving  it,  place  within  it  a 
host  newly  consecrated,  and  take  out  that  which  was  reserved, 
and  communicate  with  it.  And  let  the  deacon  carry  back  the 
vessel  with  the  fresh  host  to  its  place2. 

At  Bayeux  in  the  fourteenth  century  though  the  sacra- 
ment is  reserved  in  a  chest  over  the  altar,  the  procession 
of  the  Dominicans  and  Carmelites  has  been  adopted,  and 
the  new  hosts  are  carried  back  immediately.   We  read: 

1  Martene,  vol.  1.  lib.  1.  cap.  iv.  Art.  xn.    Ordo  XXV.  p.  228. 

2  Martene,  vol.  1.  lib.  I.  cap.  iv.  Art.  XII.    Ordo  XXII.  p.  220. 


vii]  LATER  DAYS  IN  THE  WEST  107 

Every  Sunday  while  the  priest  communicates  let  the  deacon 
take  the  linen  cloth  placed  on  the  left  part  of  the  altar,  and  two 
candlebearers  going  before  him,  fetch  the  Lord's  body  from  its 
place  over  the  right  corner  of  the  altar,  bearing  it  aloft  in  a 
pyx  with  great  reverence.  And  this  being  received  by  the 
priest,  and  two  new  hosts  put  back  by  him,  let  the  deacon  with 
the  same  solemnity  carry  back  the  pyx  with  the  body  to  the 
place  where  it  was  before1. 

Though  the  new  practice,  adopted  it  would  seem  in 
imitation  of  the  Maundy  Thursday  custom,  first  evidenced 
in  the  Sixth  Roman  Ordo,  of  removing  the  sacrament 
from  the  altar  before  the  end  of  mass,  became  very  wide- 
spread, the  older  usage,  by  which  the  hosts  left  over  from 
communion,  or  set  apart  for  reservation,  remained  on  the 
altar  until  the  end  of  the  service,  survived  at  Rome  on 
ordinary  days  until  almost  the  close  of  the  sixteenth 
century,  thus  continuing  in  a  manner  the  ancient  rule 
with  regard  to  the  third  part  of  the  priest's  obley.  In  the 
book  of  The  Sacred  Ceremonies  and  Ecclesiastical  Rites  of  the 
Holy  Roman  Church,  published  in  15 16,  w7e  read: 

The  communion  being  done  the  pope  rises  if  he  sat  for  the 
communion  and  makes  his  reverence  to  the  sacrament,  and 
the  subdeacon  puts  back  the  hosts,  if  any  remain,  upon  the 
altar  where  the}'  stay  until  the  end  of  mass2. 

In  order  to  show  how  persistent  was  this  practice 
where  Roman  influence  was  strong  it  may  be  well  to  give 
further  particulars  about  this  book.  It  was  compiled  by 
Patricius,  Bishop  of  Pienza,  and  dedicated  to  Pope 
Innocent  VIII  in  1488,  not  being  intended  for  publication. 
It  was  published  with  slight  alterations  by  Marcellus, 
Bishop  of  Corcyra  in  15 16,  much  to  the  indignation  of 
Paris  de  Grassis,  Bishop  of  Pesaro,  the  papal  Master  of 
Ceremonies,  who  resented  its  appearance  as  likely  to  be 

1  Martene,  vol.  I.  lib.  I.  cap.  iv.  Art.  xn.    Ordo  XXIV.  p.  227. 

2  Sac.  Caer.  sive  Rit.  Eccles.  S.  Rom.  Eccles.  lib.  II.  cap.  i.  §  6.  Ed. 
Catalani,  vol.  n.  p.  269. 


108  LATER  DAYS  IN  THE  WEST  [ch. 

derogatory  to  the  dignity  of  the  pope  by  making  public 
what  would  better  be  kept  private,  and  also  because  it 
was  published  as  though  it  were  Marcellus's  own  work. 
Its  popularity,  however,  was  very  great,  and  its  influence 
must  have  been  enormous  for  between  15 16  and  1582  at 
least  eight  editions  of  it  were  printed  at  Rome,  Florence, 
Venice  or  Cologne,  besides  other  editions  later.  Paris  de 
Grassis  (f  1528)  himself  also  indeed  prepared  a  similar 
work  concerning  the  ceremonial  to  be  observed  by  car- 
dinals and  bishops  in  their  dioceses,  giving  in  particular 
the  customs  at  Bologna,  but  it  was  not  published  until 
after  his  death.  Of  this  there  were  editions  at  Rome  in 
1564  and  1580,  and  at  Venice  in  1582.  With  regard  to  the 
removal  of  the  hosts  left  over  after  a  general  communion 
to  the  place  of  reservation  the  rule  is  the  same  as  that 
given  by  Patricius,  and  they  remain  on  the  altar  until  the 
end  of  mass.   We  read : 

The  communion  being  finished  the  torches  will  be  carried 
away,  and  the  cardinal  will  rise  if  he  sat  for  the  communion, 
and  the  chalice  with  the  remainder  of  the  hosts  being  put  back 
and  covered  he  will  purify  his  fingers  in  the  accustomed  manner 
and  consume  the  ablution.  Then  if  there  shall  be  hosts  upon 
the  altar  he  will  wash  his  hands  on  the  epistle  side  without 
mitre  and  finish  mass.  And  at  the  end,  if  there  shall  be  hosts 
upon  the  altar,  he  will  give  the  blessing  without  mitre,  and 
when  he  says  Initium  Sancti  Evangelii  he  will  not  sign  the 
altar,  and  as  often  as  he  shall  go  or  return  from  the  book  to 
the  middle  of  the  altar  let  him  always  genuflect,  and  he  will 
not  be  precisely  before  the  middle  of  the  altar  when  he  sings 
Dominus  vobiscum  that  he  seem  not  to  turn  his  back  directly 
on  the  sacrament1. 

The  conditional  form  of  the  directions  appears  to  be  due 

not  to  the  possibility  of  the  chalice  with  the  rest  of  the 

hosts  being  carried  away,  but  to  provide  for  the  case 

when  every  host  would  be  used  in  the  communion.  Though 

1  De  Caer.  Card,  et  Episc.  lib.  n.  cap.  49,  t.  141. 


vii]  LATER  DAYS  IN  THE  WEST  109 

details  of  ceremonial  are  given  with  some  minuteness  there 
is  no  direction  that  the  hosts  which  remain  should  be 
removed  from  the  altar  before  the  end  of  the  mass.  The 
normal  thing  would  be  that  after  a  general  communion 
and  on  some  other  occasions  at  least  a  few  would  be  left 
over,  and  this  the  rule  for  the  benediction  makes  clear. 
We  read: 

If  the  body  of  Christ  be  on  the  altar,  as  on  Easter  Day, 
Corpus  Christi,  Maundy  Thursday,  or  whenever  it  may  be, 
then  the  blessing  ought  to  be  given  with  bare  head1. 

Patricius  tells  us  that  he  had  called  in  the  help  of  John 
Burchard  in  compiling  the  second  book  of  his  work.  In 
1502  while  Master  of  the  Ceremonies  at  Rome  Burchard 
published  his  well-known  Ordo  Missae,  and  in  this  the 
ancient  rule  is  still  observed,  and  the  hosts  which  are  to 
be  reserved  remain  on  the  altar  until  after  mass.  When 
the  priest  has  said  Quid  retribuam  and  before  Calicem 
salutaris  we  are  told: 

If  there  are  consecrated  hosts  on  the  corporal  to  be  reserved 
for  another  time,  making  due  reverence  to  them,  he  places 
them  in  a  vessel  provided  for  the  purpose2. 

After  the  benediction  at  the  end  of  mass  we  read  : 

If  there  is  a  vessel  with  consecrated  hosts  to  be  reserved  for 
another  time  to  be  put  back,  due  reverence  being  made  to  the 
sacrament  with  bare  head,  he  carries  it  away  and  puts  it  down 
in  its  place  and  safely  closes  it,  and  this  being  done  he  returns 
to  the  middle  of  the  altar3. 

Nothing  is  said  about  any  hosts  which  might  be  left  over 
from  the  communion,  but  presumably  they  were  added  to 
those  in  the  pyx,  as  in  other  rites. 

That  the  ancient  practice  of  keeping  any  hosts  which 
were  to  be  reserved  on  the  altar  till  the  end  of  mass  was 

1  Lib.  I.  cap.  xlii.  f.  54. 

2  Legg,  Tracts  on  the  Mass  (H.B.S.),  p.  163. 

3  Legg,  p.  168. 


no  LATER  DAYS  IN  THE  WEST  [ch. 

universal  where  Roman  influence  was  at  work  is  proved 
by  the  popularity  of  Burchard's  Or  do  Missae,  even  more 
than  by  the  book  of  Patricius  and  Marcellus.  No  work  is 
of  greater  importance  for  the  history  of  the  ceremonial  of 
the  mass  in  the  Roman  Church  than  this  book,  for  it 
gives  the  order  of  service,  not  simply  as  performed  in  the 
basilicas  of  Rome,  but  as  carried  out  in  the  ordinary 
church.  The  rules  about  the  sacrament  for  reservation, 
though  in  accordance  with  the  most  ancient  usage,  do  not 
appear  in  the  first  draft  of  the  Ordo  in  the  missal  of  1501, 
but  they  are  to  be  found  in  numerous  editions  published 
during  the  sixteenth  century.  There  appear  to  have  been 
at  least  nine  Latin  and  two  Italian  editions  of  it  as  a 
separate  book,  the  latest  being  in  1589.  It  is  included  in 
seven  editions  of  the  Liber  Sacerdotalis,  in  one  of  the  Liber 
Familiaris  Clericorum,  in  eight  editions  of  the  Roman 
missal  and  in  two  local  missals,  and  probably  this  list  is 
not  exhaustive1.  There  can  be  no  doubt  about  its  wide- 
spread influence,  and  it  found  its  way  into  England.  A 
copy  now  in  the  British  Museum  was  in  England  at  an 
early  date,  for  the  title-page  shows  that  it  once  belonged 
to  the  Pardoner's  Churchyard  at  St  Paul's,  and  as  it  bears 
also  the  name  "Lumley"  it  may  have  belonged  to 
Cranmer2.  Perhaps  it  may  have  suggested  the  mixing  of 
the  chalice  at  the  offertory  as  ordered  in  the  First  English 
Prayer  Book,  for  this  is  in  accordance  with  Roman,  not 
with  old  English  custom,  though  it  is  the  more  ancient 
usage,  and  is  found  elsewhere. 

In  1570  a  new  edition  entitled  Ritus  Servandus  in 
Celebratione  Missarum,  or  Ritus  Celebrandi  Missam,  ap- 
peared after  emendation  under  the  authority  of  the  council 
of  Trent  in  the  Missal  of  Pius  V,  which  henceforth  was 
the  only  authorised  missal  of  the  Roman  rite.  The  rule 
about  the  hosts  for  reservation  being  placed  in  the  pyx 
still  remained  practically  as  before,  as  indeed  it  does  to 

1  Legg,  pp.  xxv.  ff.  2  Legg,  p.  121. 


vii]  LATER  DAYS  IN  THE  WEST  in 

the  present  time,  but  the  order  to  put  the  pyx  back  in  its 
place  after  the  blessing  has  disappeared.  In  the  Caere- 
moniale  Episcoporum  first  published  by  Clement  VIII  in 
1600  we  read  in  the  directions  for  Easter  Day: 

The  communion  being  finished  the  torches  which  up  to  this 
point  have  been  burning  are  carried  away,  and  the  celebrant, 
having  put  back  the  vessel  or  chalice  with  the  hosts  upon  the 
altar,  if  any  remain,  covers  it, — or  he  also  (vel  etiam)  consigns 
it  to  some  priest  ready  with  stole  and  cotta  or  cope,  and  he 
carries  it  under  a  canopy,  if  it  can  be  done  conveniently,  clerks 
going  before  with  torches  and  certain  of  the  clergy  accom- 
panying, to  the  place  where  the  sacrament  is  kept1. 

The  practice  prescribed  for  Maundy  Thursday  in  the 
Tenth  Roman  Ordo,  and  adopted  by  the  Carmelites  and 
Dominicans  and  others  even  on  ordinary  days,  is  thus 
officially  sanctioned  for  the  Roman  rite  as  an  alternative 
to  the  older  and  more  general  custom  described  by 
Patricius  and  de  Grassis,  so  that  now  the  remains  of  the 
sacrament  may  be  removed  from  the  altar  immediately 
after  the  communion  and  before  the  end  of  mass.  The 
reason  for  the  change  seems  to  emerge  quite  plainly  from 
what  we  are  told  by  Paris  de  Grassis.  In  his  description  of 
a  general  communion  we  have  noted  that  the  ceremonial  is 
to  be  different  for  the  conclusion  of  the  mass  when  the 
sacrament  remains  on  the  altar.  He  tells  us  also  that 
when  the  bishop  is  about  to  celebrate  the  sacrament 
should  be  removed  from  the  place  over  the  altar  where  it 
is  usually  reserved2.  His  reason,  as  given  in  another 
place,  is  as  follows: 

In  the  presence  of  the  sacrament  neither  the  pope  nor  the 
celebrating  bishops  can  properly  sit,  nor  can  they  retain  the 
mitre  on  their  head  nor  receive  the  censing  themselves  until 
after  the  sacrament  has  been  censed3. 

1  Lib.  11.  cap.  xxix.  pp.  263-4. 

2  De  Caer.  Card,  et  Episc.  lib.  I.  cap.  28,  f.  34. 

3  Mabillon,  vol.  11.  p.  cxliii. 


H2  LATER  DAYS  IN  THE  WEST  [ch. 

We  notice  here  a  quite  different  attitude  towards  the 
sacrament  from  that  of  the  ancient  Ordines,  where  fre- 
quently we  are  told  that  the  pope  sits  in  its  presence :  and 
this  indeed  is  the  posture  still  retained  for  the  communion, 
not  only  in  the  ceremonial  of  Patricius  and  Marcellus,  but 
in  the  book  of  Paris  de  Grassis  himself,  though  nowadays 
it  is  no  longer  the  custom,  as  Catalani  said,  "out  of 
reverence  for  the  sacrament1."  The  explanation  of  the 
removal  of  the  reserved  sacrament  from  over  the  altar  on 
the  occasion  of  a  solemn  pontifical  mass  affords  also  a 
reason  for  taking  away  what  remained  after  communion 
immediately.  As  the  practice  of  removing  the  sacrament 
before  the  bishop  celebrates  appears  to  have  been  adopted 
in  the  days  of  Leo  X  (15 13-21)  it  is  not  surprising  that 
by  the  time  of  Clement  VIII  in  1600  there  should  be  a 
further  development,  and  provision  should  be  made  for 
the  remains  to  be  taken  away  after  communion.  In 
Innocent  X's  edition  of  the  Caeremoniale  Episcoporum  in 
165 1  the  new  ideas  of  reverence  have  prevailed  entirely 
over  ancient  custom,  and  by  the  change  of  "vel  etiam" 
into  "et"  the  alternative  usage  is  disallowed,  so  that  the 
breach  with  antiquity  is  complete2,  and  the  rule  mentioned 
in  Or  do  I  that  "while  the  solemnities  of  mass  are  being 
performed  the  altar  should  not  be  without  the  sacrifice3," 
when  a  bishop  celebrates  can  no  longer  be  observed. 

According  to  the  Ritus  Celebrandi  Missam  of  1570  it 
was  still  possible  to  keep  the  ancient  rule  when  a  priest 
celebrated,  though  it  seems  seldom  to  have  been  done  in 
practice  except  when  communion  was  given  after  mass, 
for  which  special  provision  was  made  in  the  1570  order, 
or  when  there  was  no  tabernacle  over  the  altar  where 
mass  was  said.  The  Brescia  Rititale  of  1570  provides  an 

1  Catalani,  Caeremoniale  Episcoporum,  vol.  II.  cap.  xxix.  §  viii.  n.  2, 
P-  354- 

2  Lib.  11.  cap.  xxix.  p.  364.   Cf.  Ed.  Catalani,  p.  354. 

3  See  p.  63.   Mabillon,  vol.  11.  p.  14. 


vii]  LATER  DAYS  IN  THE  WEST  113 

example  of  it  when  the  communion  was  postponed  until 
the  end  of  mass: 

The  consecration  being  completed,  if  there  be  a  number  of 
consecrated  particles  which  hinder  those  things  which  remain 
to  be  done  for  the  completion  of  the  sacred  mystery  of  the 
altar,  let  him  put  them  a  little  on  one  side  until  the  reception 
of  the  body  and  blood,  and  this  being  finished  let  him  put  them 
back  again  in  the  middle  of  the  altar,  or  put  them  away  in 
the  tabernacle  if  the  communion  of  the  people  be  deferred  to 
another  day:  afterwards  let  him  wash  his  fingers  according  to 
custom.  The  consecration  being  finished  so  long  as  the  most 
holy  body  of  Christ  is  on  the  altar  let  two  lighted  candles  at 
least  burn  there  continually,  and  when  it  is  given  to  the  faith- 
ful let  there  be  also  a  burning  taper1. 

The  Peru  Manuale  of  1607  has  a  modified  form  of  these 
directions  and  the  change  from  "the  consecration  being 
finished"  to  "mass  being  finished"  brings  out  even  more 
clearly  that  the  sacrament  remains  on  the  altar  until  after 
the  end  of  mass2. 

In  the  1604  missal  of  Clement  VIII  the  same  rule  about 
placing  the  hosts  in  the  pyx  still  appears  as  in  Burchard's 
Ordo  Missae  and  the  Ritus  Celebrandi  Missam  of  1570,  and 
we  find  the  rubric  of  the  modern  Roman  missal  with 
regard  to  the  sacrament  remaining  on  the  altar  for  the 
first  time: 

If  any  particles  remain  on  the  altar  in  a  chalice  or  other 
vessel  until  the  end  of  mass  let  those  things  which  are  pre- 
scribed for  the  end  of  mass  on  Maundy  Thursday  be  observed. 

In  the  Brixen  Sacerdotale  of  1609  which  gives  directions 
for  saying  mass  "according  to  the  Roman  rite  and  the 
use  of  the  diocese  of  Brixen,"  the  remains  of  the  sacrament 
after  communion  are  plainly  ordered  to  remain  on  the 
altar  until  after  mass.   We  read: 

The  communion  being  finished,  if  any  particles  are  left  over 

1  if.  12,  13.  2  p.  20. 

l.  e.  8 


H4  LATER  DAYS  IN  THE  WEST  [ch. 

let  them  be  kept  upon  the  altar,  and  after  mass  the  sign  of  the 
cross  being  first  made  towards  the  people,  let  them  be  trans- 
ferred to  the  tabernacle  of  the  venerable  sacrament.  If  only 
one  or  so  be  left  over  the  celebrant  can  either  give  them  all 
together  to  the  last  communicant,  or  himself  consume  them 
up  to  the  time  of  the  ablution1. 

The  chief  reason  however  according  to  modern  practice 
for  the  hosts  to  remain  on  the  altar  until  the  end  of  mass 
on  ordinary  occasions  is  the  absence  of  a  tabernacle  where 
mass  is  being  said.  We  may  perhaps  close  this  part  of 
our  enquiry  with  the  words  of  a  modern  writer  with 
regard  to  the  usage  of  the  Roman  Church : 

If  no  particles  remain  he  does  not  genuflect  on  returning, 
but  if  any  remain  he  immediately  genuflects,  placing  his  hands 
on  the  corporal,  and  if  they  are  not  to  be  reserved  he  consumes 
them  reverently;  if  they  are  to  be  put  into  the  tabernacle,  he 
covers  the  pyxis,... puts  it  into  the  tabernacle,  genuflects,  and 
then  closes  the  tabernacle.  If  there  be  no  tabernacle  on  the 
altar,  so  that  the  pyxis  must  be  left  on  the  corporal,  to  be 
afterwards  removed,  the  priest  should  be  careful  to  observe 
the  reverences  prescribed  by  the  missal  for  the  case  in  which 
the  pyxis  containing  the  blessed  sacrament  remains  on  the 
altar  till  the  end  of  mass 2. 

Unfortunately  we  have  little  information  about  the 
details  of  ancient  English  practice  with  respect  to  the 
reservation  or  consumption  of  the  remains  of  the  sacrament 
after  communion.  Among  the  canons  of  the  council  of 
Durham  in  1220  we  read: 

And  therefore  we  straitly  decree  that  priests  be  careful  with 
regard  to  those  things  which  pertain  to  the  essence  of  the 
sacrament  of  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord,  providing  that 
the  eucharist  be  reserved  in  a  clean  and  well  fastened  pyx: 
and  let  not  consecrated  hosts  be  reserved  more  than  seven  days. 
Let  the  reserved  hosts  be  consumed  before  the  consumption  of 

1  p.  1 1  r. 

2  O'Kane,  Notes  on  the  Rubrics  of  the  Roman  Ritual  p.  446. 


vii]  LATER  DAYS  IN  THE  WEST  115 

the  blood  of  the  Lord  by  him  who  celebrates  the  mass  or  by 
some  other  person  of  clean  and  honest  life1. 

The  rule  found  among  the  Cautelae  Missae  of  the  printed 
Sarum  and  York  Missals  is  rather  different : 

And  if  he  has  to  consume  other  hosts,  as  when  the  host  is 
to  be  renewed,  let  him  first  consume  that  which  he  has  conse- 
crated and  the  blood:  afterwards  the  others  which  are  left 
over.  Let  him  consume  his  own  host  before  the  others,  because 
about  his  own  he  believes  and  knows,  about  the  others  he 
believes  and  does  not  know ;  at  last  after  all  the  ablutions,  and 
not  before2. 

Nothing  is  said  about  the  hosts  left  over  after  a  com- 
munion of  the  faithful,  but  presumably  if  not  reserved 
they  would  be  consumed  at  the  same  point  before  the 
ablutions. 

Our  somewhat  lengthy  enquiry  in  this  chapter  has 
shown  that  at  the  beginning  of  the  tenth  century  at  any 
rate  as  in  the  earliest  days  the  remains  of  the  sacrament 
after  the  communion  were  not  consumed  until  the  end  of 
mass.  In  the  eleventh  century,  however,  in  Gallican 
circles,  if  not  elsewhere,  the  custom,  which  is  perhaps  that 
alluded  to  in  the  Roman  Ordo  VI,  of  consuming  what  was 
left  in  the  chalice  and  the  hosts  not  required  for  reservation 
immediately  after  the  communion,  was  firmly  established. 
Relics  of  the  older  practice  survived  in  the  fact  that  the 
priest's  host  was  still  broken  into  three  pieces,  though  the 
third  part  was  no  longer  laid  down  on  the  altar  until  the 
end  of  the  service,  and  in  the  almost  universal  custom  of 
retaining  the  hosts  to  be  reserved  on  the  altar  until  after 
mass,  which  continued  to  be  the  most  general  usage  both  at 
Rome  and  elsewhere  until  the  end  of  the  sixteenth  century. 
The  Dominicans,  however,  as  early  as  the  thirteenth 
century,  imitating  the  practice  of  Maundy  Thursday  on 

1  Wilkins,  Concilia,  vol.  i.  p.  579. 

2  Dickinson,  Sarum  Missal,  col.  650.  Henderson,  York  Missal,  vol.  ir. 
p.  224. 

8—2 


n6  LATER  DAYS  IN  THE  WEST  [ch. 

ordinary  days,  had  begun  to  remove  the  sacrament  from 
the  altar  to  the  place  of  reservation  immediately  after  the 
communion,  and  the  custom  was  imitated  in  other  churches. 
In  the  Caeremoniale  Episcoporum  of  1600  the  newer 
practice  was  allowed  at  Rome  as  an  alternative  to  the 
older,  apparently  because  of  the  impossibility,  with  the 
later  ideas  of  reverence  due  to  the  sacrament,  of  carrying 
out  the  full  ceremonial  of  a  pontifical  mass  in  its  presence. 
In  the  edition  of  165 1  the  more  recent  alternative  has 
become  the  only  practice  allowed.  The  rule  for  putting 
away  the  sacrament  for  reservation  after  the  ordinary 
mass,  found  in  Burchard's  Ordo  Missae  of  1502,  disap- 
peared in  the  official  Ritus  Celebrandi  Missam  of  1570,  and 
though  a  rubric  added  in  the  Roman  missal  of  1604  pro- 
vides for  the  custom,  since  the  publication  of  the  reformed 
missal  of  Pius  V  there  has  been  no  positive  order  on  the 
subject.  In  practice  as  a  rule  the  hosts  are  placed  in  the 
tabernacle  immediately  after  the  communion  so  that  the 
primitive  custom  survives  only  on  certain  days  in  the  year, 
when  communion  is  deferred  until  after  mass,  or  when 
mass  is  said  at  an  altar  where  there  is  no  tabernacle,  and 
some  of  the  sacrament  has  to  be  reserved. 

About  ancient  British  custom  with  regard  to  putting 
away  the  hosts  for  reservation  on  ordinary  days,  no 
directions  seem  to  have  survived.  The  probability,  how- 
ever, is  that  any  hosts  which  remained  after  the  com- 
munion would  remain  upon  the  altar  until  mass  was  ended, 
as  on  Maundy  Thursday  according  to  Salisbury  use, 
and  according  to  the  Roman  books  both  on  Maundy 
Thursday  (save  for  a  time)  and  other  days.  The  fact  that 
in  England  the  method  of  reserving  the  sacrament  was  in 
a  pyx  hanging  over  the  high  altar  points  to  the  same  con- 
clusion. It  is  unlikely  that  the  lowering  of  the  dove  as 
described  in  the  Constitutions  of  Cluny1  would  as  a  rule 
take  place  in  the  middle  of  mass  immediately  after  the 

1  See  p.  103. 


vii]  LATER  DAYS  IN  THE  WEST  117 

communion,  even  though  something  of  the  sort  seems  to 
have  been  prescribed  at  Soissons1 ;  at  any  rate  it  would  be 
improbable  when  the  priest  celebrated  without  assistant 
ministers,  and  there  seems  no  hint  that  such  an  awkward 
practice  obtained  on  any  occasion  in  England.  We  can 
hardly  conclude  otherwise  therefore  than  that  in  England 
as  in  Rome  and  other  places  with  few  exceptions  the 
sacrament  remained  on  the  altar  until  the  end  of  the 
service.  Even  the  adoption  of  the  more  Roman  custom 
of  employing  tabernacles  for  reservation  instead  of  the 
hanging  pyx  in  Mary's  reign  as  at  Hereford,  Gloucester, 
Durham  and  other  places2,  would  hardly  alter  the  existing 
custom,  for  the  Roman  practice  was  identical  with  it,  and 
evidence  of  no  other  usage  in  England  seems  to  be  known. 

1  See  p.  106. 

2  Frere,  Visitation  Articles,  vol.  n.  pp.  393.  408,  414. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  ABLUTIONS 

HAVING  discussed  the  disposal  of  the  remains,  great 
or  small,  of  the  consecrated  hosts  after  the  com- 
munion we  turn  to  a  consideration  of  the  means  adopted 
to  ensure  that  the  whole  contents  of  the  chalice  also 
should  be  reverently  treated  and  consumed.  This  desire 
to  avoid  any  sort  of  irreverence  in  dealing  with  the 
remains  of  the  cup  led  to  special  care  in  the  manner  of 
washing  it,  and  ultimately  to  the  ceremony  of  the  ablu- 
tions. 

In  the  letter  of  the  pseudo  Clement  (seventh  century) 
we  saw  that  it  was  the  duty  of  the  "minister"  to  prepare 
the  chalice  for  mass,  and  to  see  that  it  was  thoroughly 
cleansed,  and  therefore  presumably  to  wash  it  after  use. 
We  read : 

The  chalice... let  the  minister  prepare,  lest  if  the  chalice  be 
not  well  washed,  it  become  sin  to  the  deacon  who  offers  it1. 

Nothing  is  said  about  what  should  be  done  with  the 
water  afterwards,  but  perhaps  it  was  disposed  of  in  the 
same  manner  as  the  ashes  of  the  palls  of  the  altar  and  other 
sacred  things,  which  were  burnt  when  too  old  for  use.  We 
read: 

^  Let  their  ashes  also  be  taken  into  the  baptistery  where  no 
one  has  to  pass,  or  be  put  into  the  wall,  or  into  holes  in  the 
floor,  that  they  may  not  be  defiled  by  the  feet  of  those  who 
enter2. 

At  Rome  according  to  Ordo  I  {c.  770)  the  washing  of 
the  chalice  used  for  the  consecration  must  have  taken 
place   where   it   had   been    prepared,    apparently  in   the 
1  P.G.  1.  col.  486.   See  p.  13.  2  P.G.  1.  col.  485. 


ch.  viii]  THE  ABLUTIONS  119 

sacristy,  and  hardly  before  the  end  of  mass.  After  the 
chalice  has  been  emptied  into  the  large  cup  used  for  ad- 
ministering the  communion  we  are  told : 

But  the  subdeacon  attendant  takes  the  chalice  and  gives  it 
to  an  acolyte  who  puts  it  back  in  the  sacristy  (paratorium)1. 

The  same  direction  is  found  also  in  Ordo  II,  and  with 
verbal  alterations  in  Ordo  III2. 

In  the  Synodical  Admonition  ascribed  to  Leo  IV  (847- 
55),  and  plainly  not  unconnected  with  the  letter  of  the 
pseudo  Clement,  there  are  much  fuller  instructions  with 
regard  to  the  cleansing  of  the  sacred  vessels,  and  here  it  is 
the  duty  not  of  any  of  the  inferior  ministers  but  of  the 
priest.   We  read: 

Consume  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord  with  fear  and 
reverence.  Wash  and  wipe  the  sacred  vessels  with  your  own 
hands. ...Let  a  place  be  provided  in  the  sacristy  or  near  the 
altar  where  the  water  can  be  poured  when  the  sacred  vessels 
are  washed,  and  let  a  fair  vessel  stand  there  with  water,  that 
there  the  priest  may  wash  his  hands  after  the  communion  3. 

The  Admonition  is  either  repeated  in  or  used  as  a  basis 
of  a  number  of  documents  which  appeared  within  the  next 
hundred  years  or  so,  and  in  particular  we  may  note  the 
Capitular  of  Hincmar,  Archbishop  of  Rheims,  of  the  year 
857,  the  synodical  charges  of  Ratherius,  Bishop  of  Verona 
(f  958),  and  of  Ulrich,  Bishop  of  Augsburg  (f  973),  and 
also  the  so-called  Eutychiani  papae  exhortatio4.  It  is  also 
the  foundation  of  certain  visitation  articles  of  about  the 
year  906  ascribed  to  Regino  of  Priim.  We  find  however  in 
these  documents  some  progress  in  the  way  of  addition  and 
interpretation.   Hincmar's  enquiry  runs: 

Has  he  a  place  provided  where  the  water  can  be  poured 
when  the  vessels  of  the  altar  are  washed,  or  the  mouth  or  hands 

1  Mabillon,  vol.  u.  pp.  14,  15.  2  Mabillon,  vol.  11.  pp.  50,  60. 

3  P.L.  cxxxii.  col.  456. 

4  P.L.  cxxv.  col.  779.  P.L.  cxxxvi.  col.  559.  Gerbert,  Vet.  Lit.  Alem. 
vol.  1.  pp.  397-8.   P.L.  v.  col.  165. 


xX 


120  THE  ABLUTIONS  [ch. 

after  the  reception  of  the  sacred  communion?  Or  does  the 
priest  himself  with  his  own  hands  wash  the  corporal  for  the 
first  time,  or  his  deacon  or  subdeacon1? 

Still  more  important  is  an  enquiry  of  Regino,  part  of 
which  we  have  already  quoted  in  the  previous  chapter : 

Mass  being  finished  (expleta  missa),  does  the  priest  himself 
with  fear  and  reverence  consume  what  is  left  of  the  body  and 
blood  of  the  Lord?  And  if  he  has  no  deacon  or  subdeacon  does 
he  himself  with  his  own  hand  wash  and  wipe  the  chalice  and 
paten2? 

We  have  already  noticed  that  apparently  the  mass  is  to 
be  completely  ended  before  the  remains  are  consumed, 
and  therefore  of  course  before  the  washing  of  the  sacred 
vessels,  which  may  now  be  entrusted  to  the  deacon  or 
subdeacon,  as  in  the  letter  of  the  pseudo  Clement. 

The  Admonition  of  the  pseudo  Leo  clearly  refers  to  a 
washing  of  the  vessels  after  the  communion  comparable 
with  the  washing  of  the  priest's  hands.  The  water  employed 
for  the  ablution  of  the  vessels  was  to  be  poured  into  the 
place  provided  for  the  purpose,  and  it  would  presumably 
be  the  same  with  the  water  used  for  washing  the  priest's 
hands,  as  Hincmar's  enquiry  makes  plain.  The  alternative 
"in  the  sacristy  or  near  the  altar"  seems  to  show  the 
beginning  of  the  custom  of  consuming  the  remains  at  the 
altar  instead  of  in  the  sacristy  as  prescribed  in  the  letter 
of  the  pseudo  Clement.  If  so,  since  according  to  the  original 
text  of  the  Admonition  the  vessels  were  to  be  washed  with 
the  priest's  own  hands,  not  by  the  deacon  or  subdeacon, 
as  allowed  by  the  pseudo  Clement,  or  anyone  else,  the 
reference  must  be  to  an  ablution  after  the  service  was  over 
rather  than  to  one  immediately  after  communion.  This 
was  almost  certainly  the  case  later  according  to  Regino's 
articles,  and  it  would  seem  to  have  been  the  traditional 
custom  at  the  period. 

1  P.L.  cxxv.  col.  779.  *  P.L.  cxxxn.  col.  190. 


viii]  THE  ABLUTIONS  121 

In  the  Missale  Francorum  belonging  to  the  latter  part 
of  the  seventh  century,  and  in  kindred  documents,  in  the 
allocution  to  the  subdeacon  at  his  ordination  we  read : 

And  the  palls  which  are  spread  upon  the  surface  of  the  altar 
ought  to  be  washed  in  one  vessel,  the  corporals  in  another. 
Where  the  corporals  have  been  washed  no  other  linen  cloth 
ought  to  be  washed  in  the  same  place.  The  water  ought  to  be 
poured  away  in  the  baptistery1. 

We  notice  that  only  the  washing  of  the  linen  cloths  of 
the  altar  is  mentioned,  and  that  nothing  is  said  about  the 
sacred  vessels.  The  order  to  pour  away  the  water  of  ablu- 
tion in  the  baptistery  reminds  us  of  the  direction  in  the 
letter  of  the  pseudo  Clement,  where  this  is  one  of  the 
places  suggested,  as  we  have  noticed,  for  the  disposal  of 
the  ashes  of  worn-out  palls  and  other  things  when  burnt. 
Both  the  allocution  to  the  subdeacon  and  the  Admonition 
of  the  pseudo  Leo  are  obviously  based  to  some  extent  on 
the  directions  of  the  pseudo  Clement.  The  mention  of  the 
washing  of  the  corporal  in  Hincmar's  Capitular,  as  well 
as  of  the  sacred  vessels,  seems  to  show  the  beginning  of  a 
process  which  was  to  combine  the  requirements  of  the  two 
documents  and  change  the  significance  and  scope  of  some 
of  the  directions  in  later  versions  of  the  Admonition, 
applying  them  to  the  washing  of  sacred  things  in  general. 
In  later  days  too  the  consumption  of  the  body  and  blood 
of  Christ  referred  to  appears  to  have  been  interpreted  of 
the  priest's  communion,  not,  as  in  the  Visitation  Articles 
of  Regino  of  Priim,  of  what  was  left  over  from  the  ad- 
ministration. In  the  version  given  in  the  first  printed 
Roman  Pontifical  of  1485  as  revised  by  Patricius,  Bishop 
of  Pienza,  we  find  both  these  modifications.   We  read: 

In  it  (i.e.  at  mass)  consume  the  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  with  all  reverence  and  fear.... The  corporals  and 
palls... and  other  linen  cloths  and  the  sacred  vessels  with  your 

1  Thomasius,  Opera  Omnia,  vol.  vi.  p.  343.  Martene,  vol.  11.  lib.  1. 
cap.  viii.  Art.  xi.  Ord.  ii,  iii,  iv,  xiv,  xvii.  pp.  34,  38,  42,  70,  84,  etc. 


122  THE  ABLUTIONS  [ch. 

own  hands  wash  and  wipe  carefully.... In  the  sacristies  or 
secretaria,  or  near  the  high  altar,  let  there  be  a  suitable  place 
for  pouring  the  water  after  washing  the  corporals  and  linen 
cloths,  the  vessels  and  other  sacred  things  and  the  hands  after 
you  have  touched  the  holy  chrism,  or  the  oil  of  catechumens 
or  of  the  sick.  And  let  a  vessel  stand  there  with  clean  water  to 
wash  the  hands  of  the  priests  and  others  who  are  about  to 
perform  a  holy  function,  and  the  divine  office,  and  near  by  a 
clean  linen  cloth  to  wipe  them1. 

The  Admonition  is  still  found  in  the  modern  Roman 
Pontifical  for  use  at  a  synod  in  a  form  more  or  less  depend- 
ent on  Patricius,  though  in  some  particulars  there  is  a 
return  to  the  original,  and  we  no  longer  hear  of  wiping 
linen  cloths. 

The  Admonition  required  the  priest  to  wash  and  wipe 
the  sacred  vessels  with  his  own  hands.  Whatever  may  have 
been  aimed  at,  the  practice  of  entrusting  their  cleansing 
to  the  deacon  or  subdeacon,  which  is  found  in  the  letter 
of  the  pseudo  Clement,  is  again  allowed  in  Regino's 
articles.  Until  quite  a  late  date  this  washing  of  the  chalice 
and  paten  with  the  consumption  of  the  small  portions  of 
the  remains  was  still  performed  after  the  conclusion  of 
the  service,  as  we  shall  see  later,  in  the  Cistercian  Customs 
and  in  the  rule  of  the  monastery  of  St  Victor  at  Paris  of 
the  twelfth  and  thirteenth  centuries2. 

It  may  be  interesting  to  see  how  the  requirements  of 
the  letter  of  the  pseudo  Clement  and  the  Admonition  of 
the  pseudo  Leo  with  regard  to  the  washing  of  the  sacred 
vessels,  etc.,  were  carried  out  in  practice,  and  the  directions 
given  in  the  Constitutions  of  Cluny  compiled  by  Ulrich 
(t  1093)  are  specially  valuable,  though  not  directly  con- 
cerned with  the  ablutions  after  mass.  We  read: 

The  subdeacon  washes  his  hands  beforehand  that  he  may 

1  P.L.  cxxxn.  col.  458. 

*  See  pp.  1 33-/5.  Martene,  vol.  m.  lib.  iv.  App.  Ant.  Const.  S.  Vict. 
Paris,  cap.  1.  p.  277.   Vol.  iv.  lib.  n.  cap.  iv.  §  xx.  p.  65. 


viii]  THE  ABLUTIONS  123 

be  ready  to  perform  his  office  with  the  chalice,  and  taking  it 
with  the  corporal  and  paten  while  the  gospel  is  being  read  he 
looks  to  see  if  any  water  has  been  left  in  it  from  the  washing, 
and  he  pours  it  into  a  hollow  place  made  in  the  brick  of  the 
tiles  near  the  altar,  just  as  another  has  been  made  a  little 
further  away  that  the  same  subdeacon  and  the  other  inferior 
ministers  may  wash  their  hands  over  it1. 

Elsewhere  each  of  these  "hollow  places"  is  called  a 
piscina.  We  read : 

And  as  soon  as  the  subdeacon  and  ministers  have  received 
the  Pax  they  do  not  neglect  to  wash  their  hands  in  the  piscina 
which  is  near  the  altar  2. 

For  this  purpose  let  there  be  provided  very  deep  vessels  of 
brass,  devoted  to  no  other  use,  and  in  these  after  vespers  in 
church  let  the  corporals  be  dipped  twice  in  cold  water,  and 
rubbed  in  the  hands.  Afterwards  water  is  poured  over  them 
a  third  time,  and  so  they  remain  all  night.  And  in  the  morning 
it  is  poured,  as  also  before,  into  the  piscina  over  which  the 
chalices  are  washed  3. 

As  there  appear  to  be  no  wall  piscinas  in  France  be- 
longing to  a  time  much  before  the  end  of  the  twelfth 
century4,  presumably  piscinas  in  the  floor  took  the  place 
of  the  earlier  use  of  the  baptistery,  and  as  we  shall  see,  it 
was  the  same  in  England. 

In  the  Admonition  of  the  pseudo  Leo  the  washing  of 
the  priest's  hands  and  of  the  sacred  vessels  are  closely 
connected  and  we  shall  find  it  convenient  to  discuss  them 
together.  In  Roman  Ordo  I  we  read  only  of  an  ablution 
of  the  pope's  hands  at  an  ordinary  mass  after  the  receiving 
of  the  oblations  at  the  offertory,  and  likewise  of  the  arch- 
deacon's: 

After  this  the  pope... returns  to  his  throne,  and  washes  his 

1  Lib.  11.  cap.  xxx.   P.L.  cxlix.  col.  717. 

2  Lib.  11.  cap.  xxx.   P.L.  cxlix.  col.  720. 

3  Lib.  in.  cap.  xiv.   P.L.  cxlix.  col.  758. 

*  Viollet  le  Due,  Diet,  de  I' Arch.  Franc,  vol.  vn.  p.  189. 


124  THE  ABLUTIONS  [ch. 

hands.  The  archdeacon  standing  before  the  altar  after  finishing 
the  reception  washes  his  hands1. 

The  same  order  with  regard  to  the  washing  of  the 
pope's  hands  is  found  in  Ordo  II,  but  nothing  is  said 
about  the  archdeacon's.  In  Ordo  III,  on  the  other  hand, 
there  is  no  mention  of  the  washing  of  the  pope's  hands, 
but  that  of  the  archdeacon's  is  still  prescribed2.  In  Ordo  I 
and  in  the  Appendix  on  Maundy  Thursday  there  are 
washings  of  the  pope's  hands  before  the  service  begins  and 
after  the  blessing  of  the  oils  before  the  communion  of  the 
faithful,  in  each  case  after  handling  the  oils.   We  read : 

And  let  the  other  ministers  hold  the  ampulla  when  full,  and 
the  pope  having  washed  his  hands  proceeds  with  the  seven 
taper  bearers  to  mass3. 

After  finishing  this  (the  benediction  of  the  oils),  and  having 
washed  his  hands  the  pope  goes  to  the  altar,  and  all  the  people 
communicate  in  order4. 

In  Ordo  I,  and  similarly  in  Ordo  II,  we  read  at  the  com- 
munion : 

After  these  things  all  return  to  the  pope's  throne,  the  caller 
of  the  names,  the  treasurer,  the  acolyte  who  holds  the  paten, 
he  who  holds  the  towel,  and  he  who  ministers  the  water,  and 
communicate,  and  the  archdeacon  confirms  them  after  the 
pope5. 

Nothing  is  said  about  the  acolytes  who  have  the  towel 
and  water  performing  their  functions  after  the  commu- 
nion, and  in  view  of  the  careful  mention  of  the  different 
washings  of  hands  on  other  occasions  it  is  unlikely  that 
any  further  ablution  took  place  before  the  end  of  mass, 
and  it  is  probable  that  the  washing  of  the  hands  after  the 
communion  was  as  yet  confined  to  Gallican  circles.  The 
earliest  evidence  of  any  such  thing  comes  from  Gaul, 

1  Mabillon,  vol.  ir.  pp.  n,  47.  2  Mabillon,  vol.  II.  p.  57. 

3  Mabillon,  vol.  11.  pp.  20,  33.  ■  Mabillon,  vol.  II.  pp.  21,  34. 

6  Mabillon,  vol.  n.  pp.  15,  50. 


viii]  THE  ABLUTIONS  125 

being  found  in  the  Ordo  of  St  Amand  (c.  830)  which  is  a 
Gallicanized  version  of  Ordo  I. 

We  read  there  at  the  conclusion  of  the  communion : 

Then  the  pontiff  descends  from  his  seat  and  goes  to  the  altar, 
and  the  taper  bearers  return  after  him.  And  meanwhile  the 
priests  or  deacons  wash  their  hands1. 

We  note  that  it  is  not  said  that  the  pope  washes  his 
hands  after  the  communion,  but  only  his  assistants,  and 
it  may  be  that  here  as  also  after  the  offertory  in  Ordo  III 
there  was  no  ablution  of  the  pope's  hands.  The  references 
to  handwashing  in  the  Ordo  of  St  Amand  are  somewhat 
peculiar,  and  are  apparently  derived  from  a  document  now 
represented  by  a  ninth  century  St  Blasien  manuscript. 
At  the  offertory  it  is  before  receiving  the  oblations  of  the 
people  that  the  pope  washes  his  hands,  and  not  afterwards 
as  is  usual2.  It  seems  somewhat  extraordinary  that  the 
pontiff  should  be  the  only  one  who  omitted  to  wash  his 
hands  after  the  communion,  but  the  presumption  is  that 
the  writer  of  the  Ordo  did  not  intend  it. 

In  Ordo  VI  (eleventh  century?)  the  ceremony  is  very 
distinctly  described,  and  it  is  one  of  some  elaboration. 
Though  the  document  appears  to  be  Gallican  in  origin  it 
appeals  to  Roman  custom  as  set  out  in  some  earlier  Roman 
Ordo  known  to  the  writer.  We  read : 

Afterwards  when  all  have  now  communicated,  the  acolyte 
who  carries  the  paten  goes  to  the  left  part  of  the  altar,  and 
stands  with  the  subdeacon.  And  the  bishop  sitting  according 
to  the  aforesaid  Ordo,  three  acolytes  kneeling  before  him 
minister  water  for  his  hands.  Having  washed  his  hands,  the 
bishop  rises,  turns  to  the  people,  and  says,  Dominus  vobiscum3. 

1  Duchesne,  C.W.  p.  463. 

2  Duchesne,  C.W.  p.  459.  Cf.  Gerbert,  vol.  11.  p.  173.  Elsewhere 
however  (p.  169)  the  St  Blasien  MS.  orders  it  at  both  points;  so  also  the 
Codex  Ratoldi  of  Corbie  (tenth  century).  Martene,  vol.  1.  lib.  1.  cap.  iv. 
Art.  xn.  Ordo  XI.  pp.  203-4. 

3  Mabillon,  vol.  11.  p.  76. 


126  THE  ABLUTIONS  [ch. 

We  notice  that  though  it  is  in  this  Ordo  that  we  are  told 
that  "the  archdeacon  must  be  very  careful  that  nothing 
of  the  blood  or  body  of  Christ  remain  in  chalice  or  paten1," 
nothing  is  said  about  any  ablution  of  the  vessels  during 
the  service. 

Directions  very  similar  in  many  ways  are  to  be  found 
even  earlier  in  the  tenth  century  Codex  Ratoldi  (f  986)  of 
the  abbey  of  Corbie.   We  read : 

At  the  nod  of  the  bishop  the  cantor  begins  the  Communion, 
Pascha  nostrum.  This  being  completed,  let  the  bishop  sit  on 
his  throne  and  having  washed  his  hands  for  the  third  time 
return  to  the  altar  and  say  the  collect  Ad  complendum2. 

Ivo  of  Chartres  (f  11 15)  describes  the  washing  of  the 
priest's  hands  after  communion  at  length,  and  compares 
it  with  the  ablutions  of  the  Levitical  priests.  After  the 
reception  we  read : 

After  these  things  the  priest  returns  to  the  right  part  of  the 
altar,  and  there  completes  the  office  of  the  mass. ...It  should  be 
noted  that  after  the  handling  and  consumption  of  the  sacra- 
ments before  the  priest  returns  to  the  assembly  of  the  church, 
though  he  ought  to  have  been  cleansed  by  partaking  of  such 
great  holiness,  he  washes  his  hands  as  from  the  touch  of  an 
unclean  and  deadly  thing,  and  the  water  is  poured  into  a 
sacred  place  provided  for  this  purpose. ...Therefore  they  wash 
their  hands  and  treat  the  water  of  ablution  fittingly,  in  which 
way  they  honour  the  dignity  of  the  sacrament,  and  by  such 
an  ablution  call  to  mind  their  own  unworthiness.... Afterwards 
there  follow  prayers  in  which  there  is  a  remembrance  of  benefits 
received  and  a  giving  of  thanks... and  all  these  things  being 
finished,  the  priest  or  the  deacon  says,  Ite  missa  est3. 

Though  the  water  with  which  the  celebrant's  hands 
were  washed  is  disposed  of  so  carefully  nothing  is  said 

1  Mabillon,  vol.  n.  pp.  75-6.   See  p.  100. 

2  Martene,  vol.  1.  lib.  1.  cap.  iv.  Art.  xn.  Ordo  XI.  p.  204. 

3  De  Rebus  Eccles.  Sermones.    Hittorp.  col.  808. 


vin]  THE  ABLUTIONS  127 

about  any  ablution  of  the  vessels,  or  precaution  against 
irreverence  with  regard  to  what  remains. 

In  the  description  of  mass  written  by  John  of  Avranches 
(c.  1065)  when  appointed  archbishop  of  Rouen,  describing 
the  ceremonial  of  Rouen,  we  find  further  development, 
though  the  date  is  earlier : 

The  particle  which  remained  in  the  chalice  let  the  priest 
consume,  and  afterwards  let  him  give  the  chalice  to  the  deacon 
to  cleanse  and  consume  what  is  left;  and  let  him  carry  away 
the  chalice  with  the  paten  to  the  left  corner  of  the  altar,  and 
there  receive  part  himself  and  give  part  to  the  subdeacon. 
Afterwards  let  each  take  a  share  in  cleansing  each.  And  let  an 
acolyte  bring  another  chalice  to  the  priest  to  wash  his  fingers. 
And  let  the  subdeacon  help  the  deacon  to  cleanse  the  chalice 
and  paten.  After  the  cleansing  of  paten  and  chalice  let  an 
acolyte  hold  each,  wrapped  in  a  napkin  until  the  end  of  the 
first  Post  Communion1. 

For  the  first  time  we  find  details  not  only  of  the  washing 
of  the  priest's  fingers,  but  also  of  the  sacred  vessels,  which 
takes  place  in  church  after  the  communion  and  the  con- 
sumption of  the  remains,  and  before  the  end  of  the  service. 
Nothing  is  said  about  the  disposal  of  the  water  in  which 
they  were  washed,  and  presumably  it  was  poured  away. 
The  priest's  hands  are  washed,  not  in  the  fair  vessel  of  the 
Admonition  of  the  pseudo  Leo,  nor  in  the  chalice  used  at 
the  mass,  but  in  another  chalice.  We  note  that  the  whole 
ceremony  of  consuming  the  remains,  washing  the  vessels 
and  the  priest's  hands,  which  originally  had  taken  place 
in  the  sacristy,  has  now  come  to  be  performed,  presumably 
from  motives  of  greater  reverence,  near  the  altar  and 
during  the  service.  If  the  cleansing  could  be  performed 
by  some  one  else  besides  the  priest  it  is  not  surprising  that 
sooner  or  later  it  should  be  carried  out  by  the  deacon 
or  subdeacon  immediately  after  the  communion  of  the 


De  Off.  Eccles.,  P.L.  cxlvii.  col.  37. 


128  THE  ABLUTIONS  [ch. 

people,  and  while  the  priest  concludes  the  service.  It 
would  be  a  great  convenience  that  the  vessels  clean  and 
dry  should  thus  be  put  away  at  the  end  of  mass  on  the 
departure  of  the  ministers  from  the  altar. 

In  a  letter  of  Peter  Damien  (f  1072)  to  the  priest 
Ubertus  we  find  a  further  development : 

With  regard  to  the  celebration  of  the  solemnities  of  masses 
we  have  both  learned  and  hold  this  rule  according  to  the  custom 
in  well-ordered  churches,  that  we  put  off  pouring  into  the 
chalice  at  the  end  of  mass  if  we  hope  ourselves  to  offer  the 
sacrifice  again  the  same  day.  Otherwise  whenever  we  offer  the 
sacred  hosts  at  the  end  we  always  besprinkle  the  chalice 
according  to  custom.  Further  whether  we  are  fasting  or  not, 
we  do  not  change  this  rule  of  besprinkling1. 

Peter  Damien  appears  to  be  the  first  to  mention  a 
ceremonial  pouring  into  the  chalice,  but  he  does  not  tell  us 
whether  it  is  identical  with  the  pouring  over  the  priest's 
fingers,  or  even  mention  the  latter  at  all,  nor  does  he  say 
whether  the  ablution  is  of  wine  or  water.  It  seems  more 
probable  that  wine  was  used,  and  this  was  certainly  the 
custom  later,  but  in  view  of  the  omission  of  the  sprinkling 
when  the  priest  had  to  celebrate  again  it  is  improbable 
that  there  was  any  pouring  over  the  priest's  fingers  into 
the  chalice  or  other  vessel,  apart  from  the  final  washing 
of  his  hands ;  but  however  this  may  have  been  the  ablution 
was  consumed  by  the  priest  and  not  poured  away,  or  the 
ablution  need  not  have  been  omitted  before  a  second 
mass.  The  ceremony  is  clearly  a  preliminary  to  the 
necessary  washing  of  the  vessels  which  must  take  place 
later  and  after  the  service,  at  any  rate  when  there  was  no 
minister.  The  ablution  he  says  is  already  traditional  in 
well-ordered  churches,  but  as  yet  it  is  not  universally 
regarded  as  an  essential  feature  of  mass. 

In  Roman  Ordo  X  (eleventh  century)  we  get  the  sug- 

1  Epis.  lib.  vm.  ep.  xviii.,  P.L.  cxliv.  col.  370. 


vni]  THE  ABLUTIONS  129 

gestion  of  further  elaboration.  In  the  description  of  the 
Good  Friday  ceremonies  we  read : 

And  the  pontiff  alone  communicates  without  the  ministers, 
not  solemnly  at  his  throne,  but  on  this  day  only  before  the 
altar  out  of  humble  reverence  for  God  and  the  passion  of 
Christ.  And  on  the  present  Friday,  and  when  mass  is  celebrated 
for  the  dead,  he  makes  the  ablution  in  the  chalice  and  con- 
sumes it  himself,  and  afterwards  washes  with  water  in  the 
bowls1. 

We  note  that  it  is  only  at  requiems  and  the  communion 
of  the  presanctified  on  Good  Friday  that  the  ablution  is 
made  in  the  chalice,  apparently  that  used  at  the  mass. 
As  this  is  a  preliminary  to  the  washing  of  his  hands  it 
seems  that  the  ablution  in  the  chalice  was  made  over  his 
fingers,  and  in  view  of  later  practice  probably  of  wine. 
At  requiems  and  on  Good  Friday  the  ablution  is  consumed 
by  the  pope,  on  ordinary  occasions  presumably  by  other 
of  the  ministers. 

In  the  Carthusian  Statutes  (c.  1230)  we  are  told: 

After  consuming  the  blood  the  priest  on  every  occasion 
consumes  the  first  ablution  immediately  without  any  interval. . . . 
When  the  priest  washes  his  fingers  in  water  Agnus  Dei  is 
begun. ...On  every  occasion  when  mass  is  sung  he  who  assists 
the  priest,  whether  he  communicates  or  not,  takes  the  chalice, 
washes  it  with  wine  and  consumes  it,  but  only  when  he  com- 
municates. Otherwise  the  wine  is  poured  into  the  sacrarium, 
and  the  chalice  as  in  other  masses  is  turned  over  upon  the  paten2. 

As  the  chalice  is  afterwards  washed  with  wine  the  first 
ablution  can  hardly  be  of  anything  else.  Presumably  it  is 
made  into  the  chalice  and  consumed  by  the  priest.  The 
washing  of  the  fingers  in  water  must  be  in  another  vessel, 
and  as  the  wine  with  which  the  chalice  is  washed  is  not 
necessarily  consumed,  the  water  of  ablution  is  probably 
poured  into  the  piscina. 

1  Mabillon,  vol.  n.  p.  103. 

2  Martene,  vol.  1.  lib.  1.  cap.  iv.  Art.  xn.  Ordo  XXV.  p.  228. 

L.  E.  9 


130  THE  ABLUTIONS  [ch. 

Innocent  III  (1198-1216)  in  a  work  on  The  Sacred 
Mystery  of  the  Altar  written  before  his  elevation  to  the 
papacy,  describing  the  practice  of  his  time,  bases  his 
words  on  those  of  Ivo  of  Chartres: 

After  the  consumption  of  the  sacrifice  of  the  eucharist  the 
priest  washes  and  besprinkles  his  hands  lest  anything  remain 
unawares  after  touching  the  most  divine  sacrament,  not  that 
he  has  contracted  any  uncleanness  in  touching  the  sacrament, 
but  rather  that  he  may  remember  his  own  unworthiness  who 
has  judged  himself  unworthy  of  celebrating  so  great  sacra- 
ments...and  indeed  account  it  unfitting  that  the  hands  which 
have  handled  the  incorruptible  body  should  touch  a  corruptible 
body  until  they  are  carefully  washed.  But  the  water  of  ablution 
ought  to  be  poured  away  honourably  into  a  clean  place  that 
the  dignity  of  the  sacrament  may  be  more  reverently  esteemed1. 

About  the  year  12 12  the  Bishop  of  Maguelonne  and  the 
clergy  of  his  cathedral  of  St  Peter  wrote  to  Innocent  III 
asking  for  a  ruling  with  regard  to  the  ablutions.  In  the 
pope's  letter  of  reply  we  read: 

You  desire  to  be  instructed  by  letters  apostolic  when  a  priest 
ought  to  besprinkle  at  mass.  To  which  we  thus  make  answer. 
The  priest  ought  always  to  besprinkle  with  wine  after  he  has 
received  the  whole  sacrament  of  the  eucharist  except  when  on 
the  same  day  he  has  to  celebrate  another  mass,  lest  if  by  chance 
he  received  the  wine  of  ablution,  he  should  be  hindered  from 
another  celebration2. 

We  notice  that  no  information  is  given  about  what  is  to 
be  besprinkled  or  washed,  whether  the  chalice,  the  priest's 
mouth  or  fingers,  or  all  three,  but  the  ablution  is  evidently 
in  the  chalice  and  clearly  quite  distinct  from  the  washing 
with  water  mentioned  in  the  previous  extract,  for  the 
wine  is  to  be  consumed  but  the  water  poured  away  in  a 

1  De  Sacro  Altari  Mysterio,  lib.  VI.  8,  P.L.  ccxvn.  col.  qio-ii. 

2  P.L.  ccxv.  col.  442.  Cf.  Decret.  Greg.  IX,  lib.  III.  tit.  xli.  De 
celebratione.c.  v.  Corpus  Juris  Canonici,  Pars  II.  Ed.  Friedburg,  1881, 
col.  636. 


viii]  THE  ABLUTIONS  131 

clean  place.  In  the  version  of  this  letter  used  and  com- 
mented on  by  St  Thomas  Aquinas  (f  1274)  we  read: 
'The  priest  ought  always  to  rinse  (besprinkle)  his  mouth 
with  wine1,"  but  there  is  no  reference  to  the  mouth  in 
the  authentic  text,  and  more  probably  the  ablution  of 
the  chalice  is  intended. 

In  the  Order  of  the  Offices  of  the  church  of  Siena  com- 
piled in  1213  by  Orderic,  a  canon  of  the  church,  we  find 
interesting  directions  with  regard  to  the  ablutions: 

The  communion  being  received  by  the  priest,  and  all  the 
ministers  and  those  who  were  to  be  communicated  com- 
municated, the  deacon  folds  the  corporal  and  puts  it  back  in 
its  place,  and  if  any  of  the  body  remains  he  puts  it  away  with 
the  greatest  care.  And  this  done  the  priest  washes  over  the 
chalice  the  tips  of  the  fingers  of  each  hand  with  which  he  has 
consecrated  the  body  of  the  Lord,  the  deacon  near  the  altar 
holding  the  chalice  from  underneath,  and  the  subdeacon 
pouring  the  wine.  And  afterwards  he  washes  the  same  fingers 
over  a  bowl  with  water  given  by  an  acolyte.  Then  wiping  his 
fingers  with  a  towel  which  was  put  on  the  corner  of  the  altar 
he  drinks  up  the  ablution  of  wine  which  is  in  the  chalice,  and 
so  all  things  being  arranged  the  deacon  and  subdeacon  return 
to  stand  in  their  place  behind  the  priest2. 

Only  one  ablution  is  mentioned,  of  the  priest's  fingers, 
and  nothing  is  said  about  a  washing  of  the  chalice.  Wine 
is  used,  and  the  ablution  is  over  the  chalice,  but  afterwards 
there  is  a  washing  of  the  same  fingers  with  water  over  a 
bowl. 

Alexander  of  Hales  (f  1245)  gives  a  paraphrase  of  the 
directions  of  Innocent  IIP,  but  as  he  was  an  Englishman 
we  may  perhaps  reserve  it  for  consideration  later  when 
dealing  with  the  history  of  the  ablutions  in  Britain. 

1  Summa,  Pars  in.  Quaes,  lxxxiii.  De  ritu  eucharistiae,  Art.  v.  10, 
P.L.  iv.  (Second  Series),  col.  848. 

2  Trombelli,  Ordo  Off.  Ecc.  Senensis,  Pt.  11.  §  68,  p.  472. 

3  Tractal.  de  Officio  Missae,  Pars  n.  Summa  Theol.  1622,  vol.  III. 
p.  327.    See  pp.  1 50-1. 

9—2 


132  THE  ABLUTIONS  [ch. 

The  remarks  of  Durandus  (f  1296)  on  the  ablutions  in 
his  Rationale  of  the  Divine  Offices  are  clearly  based  on  the 
paraphrase  of  Ivo  of  Chartres  by  Innocent  III.   We  read: 

After  the  consumption  of  the  sacrifice  of  the  eucharist  the 
priest  washes  and  besprinkles  his  fingers  lest  anything  by 
chance  remain  unawares,  or  adhere  after  touching  the  divine 
sacrament,  not  that  he  has  contracted  any  uncleanness  in 
touching  it,  but  rather  that  he  may  remember  his  own  un- 
worthiness  who  judges  himself  unworthy  of  celebrating  so 
great  sacraments.... It  is  indeed  unfitting  that  his  hands  which 
have  handled  the  incorruptible  body  should  take  hold  of  a 
corruptible  body,  or  approach  and  touch  common  things  until 
they  are  carefully  washed.  And  on  account  of  this  also  some, 
when  mass  is  finished  and  they  have  put  off  the  sacred  vest- 
ments, wash  their  hands  again.  And  the  water  of  ablution 
ought  to  be  poured  into  a  clean  and  honourable  place  that  the 
dignity  of  the  sacrament  may  be  reverently  esteemed.. .  .And  the 
priest  besprinkles  his  fingers  and  consumes  the  ablution  at  the 
right  corner  of  the  altar,  or  at  least  turning  towards  it.... Some 
having  drunk  the  ablution  put  the  chalice  on  its  side1. 

In  the  ancient  Rituale  of  the  church  of  Soissons  we  find 
a  reminiscence  of  Roman  Ordo  X.   We  read : 

The  Communion  is  so  called  because  it  is  sung  at  the  time 
of  communion.  And  so  to  complete  (ad  complcndum)  the 
mystery  of  our  salvation  let  the  subdeacon  pour  wine  into  the 
chalice.  At  the  ablution  of  the  hands  let  the  clerks  minister 
water  in  bowls:  let  this  ablution  also  be  poured  into  the 
piscina  which  is  reserved  for  the  use  of  the  high  altar2. 

Again  there  is  no  mention  of  the  pouring  of  wine  over 
the  priest's  fingers,  but  it  could  hardly  have  been  omitted. 

In  the  Roman  Ordo  printed  by  Martene  describing  the 
duties  of  the  cardinal  deacon  when  he  assists  the  pope  at 
mass  on  festivals  only  one  ablution  is  mentioned.  We 
read : 

1  Rationale,  lib.  iv.  cap.  lv.    De  Perfusione,  i.  lxxviii. 

2  Martene,  vol.  1.  lib.  1.  cap.  iv.  Art.  XII.  Ordo  XXII.  pp.  220-21. 


vin]  THE  ABLUTIONS  133 

And  after  the  subdeacon  has  sucked  the  reed  at  both  ends 
the  same  cardinal  places  the  reed  upon  the  paten,  and  the 
subdeacon  afterwards  consumes  what  is  in  the  chalice.  Then 
the  same  cardinal  turns  to  the  cardinal  bishop  who  brings  to 
him  the  ablution  which  the  pope  had  made  after  receiving  the 
body  and  blood,  and  he  takes  it  and  drinks  a  little  and  gives 
the  rest  to  the  subdeacon  to  drink1. 

As  the  ablution  made  by  the  pope  is  brought  to  the 
cardinal  while  the  subdeacon  is  in  the  act  of  consuming 
what  is  left  in  the  chalice,  it  must  be  that  of  the  pope's 
fingers  made  in  another  vessel,  not  that  of  the  chalice. 
There  is  no  mention  of  the  washing  of  the  pope's  hands  in 
the  bowls  as  elsewhere. 

In  the  statutes  of  the  monastery  of  St  Victor  in  Paris 
(thirteenth  century)  we  find  a  description  of  the  ceremonial 
ablutions  in  a  developed  state,  but  when  there  is  a  com- 
munion of  the  people  they  are  only  a  preliminary  to  the 
more  thorough  cleansing  of  the  sacred  vessels  with  the 
consumption  of  the  smallest  fragments  of  the  consecrated 
hosts  which  still  takes  place  after  mass  at  the  altar.  We 
read: 

And  when  all  have  communicated  let  the  brethren  who  are 
in  the  choir  sing  the  Communion,  and  then  let  the  deacon  with 
the  chalice  and  the  subdeacon  with  a  cruet  of  wine  cross  to 
the  corner  of  the  altar,  and  let  the  priest  take  the  chalice  and 
wash  his  fingers  in  it,  and  then  do  the  rest  in  the  accustomed 
manner.  But  it  should  be  known  that  as  often  as  the  body  of 
the  Lord  is  administered  from  the  paten,  and  as  often  as  the 
blood  from  the  chalice,  to  another  besides  the  priest,  the  deacon 
ought  when  he  returns  with  the  subdeacon  to  the  altar  after 
mass,  having  first  washed  his  hands,  to  wash  the  paten  itself 
and  to  pour  the  ablution  into  the  chalice,  and  he  or  the  sub- 
deacon to  consume  it:  then  the  subdeacon  pouring  water  let 
him  wash  the  chalice  both  within  and  without,  and  the  paten 

1  Martene,  vol.  i.  lib.  i.  cap.  iv.  Art.  xn.  p.  246. 


134  THE  ABLUTIONS  [ch. 

in  the  piscina,  and  wipe  it  with  a  towel  provided  for    the 
purpose1. 

The  priest  washes  his  hands  in  the  piscina  after  the 
first  ablution  in  the  chalice,  for  we  read: 

And  after  the  Pax  has  been  received  each  will  turn  to  the 
altar,  and  they  will  so  stand  until  the  priest  goes  to  the  piscina. 
Then  the  Communion  will  be  begun2. 

The  Customs  of  the  Cistercians  (c.  1120)  likewise  provide 
for  the  more  ancient  manner  of  making  the  ablutions 
after  the  service,  and  though  earlier  in  date  than  the 
statutes  of  the  monastery  of  St  Victor  the  directions  are 
more  elaborate,  and  show  really  a  more  advanced  stage 
of  development.   We  read: 

Receiving  the  chalice  let  him  besprinkle  his  fingers  within 
it,  and  placing  it  upon  the  altar  go  to  the  piscina  to  wash  his 
fingers  in  water.  Wiping  them  on  the  moderate  sized  linen 
cloth  provided  for  him  for  the  purpose  let  him  return  to  the 
altar  to  consume  the  wine  which  he  has  poured  into  the  chalice. 
After  receiving  it  let  him  again  besprinkle  the  chalice  with 
wine.  Having  drunk  this  let  him  place  it,  not  on  its  side,  upon 
the  altar  next  the  pa  ten....  After  Benedicamus  Domino  or  Ite 
missa  est  has  been  said  let  him  (the  deacon)  bow,  and  then 
going  to  the  altar  let  him  take  away  from  it  the  chalice  and  the 
paten  upon  a  salver,  consuming  there  with  his  tongue  anything 
which  may  have  been  left  over  of  the  body  of  the  Lord  upon 
the  paten.  And  afterwards  taking  the  tube  let  him  wash  it 
with  wine,  and  afterwards  the  paten.  After  drinking  this  let 
him  pour  other  wine  into  the  chalice  rinsing  the  inside,  and  let 
him  again  receive  it.  Let  him  a  third  time  pour  in  wine,  rinsing 
it  in  the  same  manner,  and  this  let  the  subdeacon  finish.  And 
if  it  shall  be  necessary  let  him  pour  in  wine  still  another  time, 
and  having  washed  and  wiped  them  on  the  towel  on  which 

1  Martene,  vol.  in.  lib.  iv.  App.  Ant.  Cons.  S.  Vict.  Paris,  cap.  1. 
p.  277. 

2  Cap.  lxviii.  p.  283. 


vni]  THE  ABLUTIONS  135 

a  little  before  the  priest  wiped  his  fingers,  let  him  put  them 
away,  and  the  corporals  with  the  chalices1. 

At  Cluny  ceremonial  elaboration  took  place  at  an  early 
date,  and  already  in  the  eleventh  century  we  find  not  only 
the  ceremonial  ablutions  after  the  communion  but  also 
that  the  necessary  cleansing  of  the  vessels,  which  also 
has  become  an  elaborate  ceremony,  has  been  transferred 
from  after  the  service  to  the  same  place.  We  quote 
Ulrich's  version,  but  practically  the  same  directions  are 
to  be  found  in  the  Constitutions  of  the  monastery  of  St 
Benignus  at  Dijon,  which  appear  to  be  based  on  an 
earlier  text  of  the  Cluny  statutes2: 

If  the  body  of  the  Lord  remain  over,  or  if  it  seem  good  to  him 
(the  priest),  it  is  covered  with  the  scutella,  and  he  who  holds  it 
does  not  move  away  thence  until  the  priest  after  taking  the 
chalice  from  the  subdeacon  consumes  the  blood  and  the  wine 
with  which  he  afterwards  washes  the  chalice,  which  is  poured 
by  the  same  subdeacon  who  holds  the  cruet  in  one  hand,  and 
with  the  other,  which  is  wrapped  in  a  linen  cloth,  which  he  had 
placed  with  the  paten  upon  the  altar,  lifts  up  the  foot  of  the 
chalice.  The  deacon  after  receiving  the  communion  goes  near 
the  armariolum  that  he  may  wash  with  wine  in  another  chalice 
his  fingers,  with  which  he  has  handled  the  Lord's  body,  the 
minister  who  is  serving  pouring  the  wine  from  the  cruet  and 
lifting  the  foot  of  the  chalice.  And  after  washing  he  first  wipes 
them  on  the  chalice  and  then  puts  it  to  his  face,  and  that  part 
which  he  wiped  to  his  mouth,  and  consumes  the  wine  turning 
to  the  east. ...And  the  subdeacon,  as  soon  as  the  priest  has 
consumed  the  blood  and  the  wine  with  which  he  afterwards 
washed  the  chalice,  takes  from  him  the  chalice  kissing  his  hand, 
and  from  the  deacon  the  paten  belonging  to  the  chalice,  which 
he  had  taken  from  the  altar,  one  of  the  corporals  being  always 
put  upon  it, — for  the  other  he  puts  back  into  its  place  upon 
the  altar — and  then  he  who  holds  the  scutella  lifting  it  on  high 

1  Martene,  vol.  iv.  lib.  II.  cap.  iv.  §§  xv,  xx.  p.  65. 

2  Martene,  vol.  iv.  lib.  11.  cap.  iv.  §  xv.  p.  64. 


136  THE  ABLUTIONS  [ch. 

goes  to  the  left  corner  of  the  altar,  and  the  subdeacon  remains 
with  the  chalice  on  the  right,  holding  the  chalice  in  one  hand 
behind  the  priest,  the  paten  with  the  corporal  being  lifted  up 
for  a  short  time  with  the  other.  And  towards  them  the  whole 
convent  genuflects  out  of  reverence  for  the  body  and  blood  of 
the  Lord.   And  as  soon  as  the  minister  who  is  serving   has 
poured  the  wine  on  the  fingers  of  the  deacon  he  approaches 
towards  the  foot  pace  (reclinatorium)  bringing  the  other  smaller 
chalice  with  the  cruet,  with  which  he  has  ministered  to  the 
deacon  and  which  he  afterwards  took  from  him,  that  the  priest 
also  may  wash  his  fingers  with  which  he  has  handled  the  Lord's 
body,  which  he  is  never  allowed  to  wash  in  the  chalice  of  the 
high  mass.    After  taking  this  wine  is  again  poured  into  the 
chalice,  that  the  chalice  itself  may  be  washed  a  little,  and  it  is 
consumed  by  the  priest.   And  as  often  as  he  consumes  either 
the  blood  or  the  wine  which  is  left  he  turns  his  face  towards 
the  altar  or  towards  the  east.  And  he  who  carries  the  candle- 
stick, after  the  priest  has  returned  from  the  pax,  immediately 
takes  it  and  holds  it  lifted  up  before  the  step,  and  does  not  put 
it  down  before  Per  Dominum  nostrum  of  the  first  Post  Com- 
munion collect  is  said.  At  the  same  time  both  the  subdeacon 
with  the   chalice  and  the  minister  with  the  scutella  depart.... 
And  after  the  subdeacon  and  minister  have  departed  from  before 
the  altar  each  carries  his  own  things  to  the  armariolum,  and 
there  although  it  be  bright  day  both,  that  is  to  say  the  paten 
upon  which  the  body  of  the  Lord  was  broken  and  the  chalice, 
are  most  carefully  examined  with  a  taper  by  the  subdeacon  and 
minister  lest  by  chance  even  the  most  minute  portion  of  the 
Lord's  body  remain,  and  if  he  should  see  anything  remain  he 
does  not  presume  to  touch  it  with  his  hand  but  lifts  it  with  his 
tongue  only  and  consumes  it,  if  it  be  a  particle  such  as  he  can 
conveniently  consume,  but  if  it  be  very  minute  and  as  one  may 
say  indivisible  and  like  an  atom,  if  he  can  he  takes  it  with  wine 
in  the  chalice  in  which  the  priest  and  deacon  wash  their  fingers, 
and  lifts  it  and  removes  it.  But  if  it  so  adhere  that  this  cannot 
be  done  with  wine,  he  puts  his  tongue  lightly  on  the  place  where 
he  saw  it  and  consumes  it,  and  afterwards  again  pours  wine 


viii]  THE  ABLUTIONS  137 

upon  the  paten.  But  even  if  he  has  discovered  that  nothing  of 
any  size  remains  there,  yet  let  him  not  because  of  this  omit  to 
pour  wine  upon  it  very  carefully  at  any  rate  once,  and  consume 
entirely  what  was  poured ;  and  afterwards  he  washes  the  same 
chalice  in  which  he  consumed  the  wine  which  was  poured 
upon  the  paten  with  other  wine,  or  he  puts  that  other  wine, 
with  which  either  he  or  the  minister  washed  the  chalice  of  the 
high  mass  inside,  into  that  chalice  and  consumes  it,  and  puts 
other  wine  into  the  chalice  of  the  high  mass,  and  washes  it 
all  round  inside,  and  if  the  minister  has  communicated  he  will 
drink  it,  but  if  not  the  subdeacon,  after  he  has  consumed  the 
wine  poured  upon  the  paten,  puts  it,  as  was  said,  into  that 
chalice  on  which  the  same  paten  was  placed  and  consumes  it, 
and  then  does  not  wash  it  with  other  wine  unless  by  chance 
he  discovers  that  something  remains  there  afterwards.... And 
if  they  are  able  to  finish  a  little  before  the  end  of  mass  neither 
of  them  ought  because  of  this  to  unvest.  And  when  the  priest 
leaves  the  altar  he  gives  the  missal  to  the  deacon  that  it  may 
be  carried  back  by  him1. 

In  comparison  with  this  very  complicated  account  the 
description  of  what  is  done  at  low  mass  is  quite  simple : 

Then  he  consumes  the  blood.  Then  his  companion  pours 
wine  into  the  chalice  for  the  first  time,  and  the  third  time  pours 
it  over  the  first  four  fingers  which  have  handled  the  body  of 
the  Lord,  and  these  after  the  ablution  he  ought  to  wipe  on  the 
front  part  of  the  chalice  whence  he  consumed  the  blood.  Then 
he  puts  the  chalice  to  his  own  mouth,  and  does  likewise  for 
his  companion  if  he  has  communicated,  and  he  receives  it, 
and  his  companion  kisses  his  hand  when  he  returns  the  chalice 
to  the  priest2. 

The  description  of  low  mass  is,  as  we  should  expect, 
based  on  that  of  high  mass,  for  it  is  high  mass  which  is 
properly  the  norm  of  any  rite,  and  low  mass  is  merely  a 

1  Martene,  vol.  iv.  lib.  n.  cap.  iv.  §  xv.  pp.  63-4.    P.L.  cxlix.  col. 

721-3- 

2  Martene,  vol.  iv.  lib.  11.  cap.  iv.  §  xx.  p.  71. 


138  THE  ABLUTIONS  [ch. 

convenient  curtailment.  We  note  that  the  pouring  of 
wine  into  the  chalice  is  distinct  from  the  pouring  over  the 
priest's  ringers,  and  this  ablution  of  the  chalice  takes  place 
twice  before  the  ablution  of  the  fingers.  If  he  has  com- 
municated the  server  assists  in  the  consumption  of  the 
ablutions. 

From  the  beginning  of  the  thirteenth  century  references 
to  the  ablutions  are  plentiful,  but  there  was  great  variety 
of  practice.  About  this  time  we  begin  to  find  rules  about 
what  is  to  be  done  when  a  priest  duplicates,  but  the  fact 
that  it  was  necessary  for  councils  so  frequently  to  make 
decrees  on  the  subject  shows  clearly  that  as  yet  there  was 
no  rule  which  was  generally  accepted  and  absolute. 
Various  British  councils  considered  the  question,  and 
made  canons  dealing  with  it,  as  those  of  Westminster  in 
1200,  Durham  in  1220,  Oxford  in  1222,  and  Aberdeen  in 
12301.  We  find  similar  rules  also  in  the  constitutions  of 
Richard  le  Poor  of  Salisbury  (c.  1220),  of  Archbishop 
Langton  in  1222,  and  of  Archbishop  Edmund  of  Abingdon 
in  1236,  and  elsewhere2.  Reserving  these  for  the  present 
we  may  note  a  canon  of  the  council  of  Cologne  in  1280. 
We  read: 

And  now  in  the  first  mass  after  the  reception  of  the  blood 
let  him  not  take  the  ablution  of  wine  and  water,  but  reserve 
it  in  a  safe  and  proper  place,  and  receive  it  at  the  second  mass, 
or  let  him  give  it  to  a  proper  person  who  is  fasting  and  whom 
he  knew  to  be  ready  for  the  purpose3. 

At  the  council  of  Nimes  in  1284  we  find  what  w^as  to 
become  the  ordinary  practice  of  the  West : 

We  decree  also  that  in  the  chalice  there  be  placed  more  wine 
than  water,  and  that  after  the  priest  has  received  the  whole 

1  Wilkins,  Concilia,  vol.  I.  pp.  505,  579,  586.  Regislrum  Aberdonense, 
vol.  n.  p.  27. 

2  Spelman,  Concilia,  vol.  11.  p.  148.  Wilkins,  vol.  1.  p.  594.  Spelman, 
vol.  11.  pp.  206,  232.    See  pp.  1 51-4. 

3  Hardouin,  vol.  VII.  col.  825. 


vni]  THE  ABLUTIONS  139 

of  the  sacrament  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  he  shall  make 
two  receptions  according  to  the  custom  of  the  church  of  Nimes, 
the  first  of  pure  wine  only,  the  second  of  wine  and  water ;  and 
with  the  second  let  him  at  the  same  time  besprinkle  his  fingers 
over  the  chalice  and  afterwards  receive  it,  except  when  he  has 
to  celebrate  another  mass  the  same  day,  and  then  he  ought  not 
to  receive  it  but  only  the  blood.  And  if  he  receives  it,  it  prevents 
the  second  celebration1. 

In  Roman  Or  do  XIV  the  ceremony  of  the  ablutions  is 
mentioned  several  times,  and  as  these  directions  form  the 
basis  of  the  modern  Roman  rules,  we  must  give  the  chief 
of  the  accounts  in  full.  We  note  the  influence  of  the 
Admonition  of  the  pseudo  Leo  in  the  phraseology,  and  so 
ultimately  of  the  epistle  of  the  pseudo  Clement : 

Afterwards  the  chalice  being  uncovered  by  the  deacon,  he 
will  be  able  to  wipe  the  paten  over  it  a  little  with  his  right 
thumb,  so  that  if  anything  of  the  host  remains  on  it,  it  may 
fall  into  the  chalice,  and  let  him  say  the  verses,  Quid  retribuam, 
Calicem,  and  the  other  things  which  are  to  be  said  before  the 
consumption  of  the  blood,  as  they  are  contained  in  the  book. 
And  then  let  him  consume  the  blood  with  the  portion  of  the 
host  which  is  in  the  chalice  with  all  reverence  and  care.  After 
consuming  it  let  him  take  a  little  wine  in  the  chalice,  the  sub- 
deacon  pouring  it,  and  consume  it  to  wash  his  mouth.  After- 
wards saying  the  prayers,  Quod  ore  sumpsimus  and  Corpus 
tuum,  let  him  hold  the  fingers  of  each  hand,  with  which  he  has 
touched  the  host,  over  the  chalice  and  wash  them  a  little,  the 
subdeacon  again  pouring  the  wine.  And  before  he  consumes  it 
let  him  wash  his  fingers  again  in  water,  which  a  chaplain 
pours  into  the  bowls,  and  let  this  water  be  thrown  away  in 
a  clean  place.  Having  washed  his  fingers  in  water  in  the  afore- 
mentioned manner  let  the  pontiff  wipe  his  mouth  with  a  towel, 
which  he  who  keeps  the  mitre  offers  to  him.  Afterwards 
having  drunk  the  wine  which  was  in  the  chalice  let  him  wipe 
his  mouth  with  the  same  cloth.    Meanwhile  let  the  deacon, 

1  Hardouin,  vol.  vn.  col.  916. 


140  THE  ABLUTIONS  [ch. 

having  washed  his  lingers,  fold  the  corporals  and  put  them 
away  in  the  place  in  which  they  ought  to  be  kept1. 

In  Roman  Or  do  XV  we  have  already  mentioned  the 
washing  of  the  pope's  hands  in  the  great  bowls.  More 
details  are  given  with5  regard  to  the  ceremony  of  the 
ablutions  on  Good  Friday,  the  description  being  based  on 
that  in  Ordo  X.   We  read: 

And  the  pope  communicates  alone  without  the  ministers... 
and  he  consumes  the  blood  not  with  the  reed,  but  from  the 
chalice,  and  after  the  consumption  of  the  blood  wine  is  poured 
into  the  chalice  by  the  sacristan,  or  other  bishop  who  serves 
him  in  the  mass,  and  it  is  consumed  from  the  chalice  at  the 
corner  of  the  altar ;  and  in  the  same  place  he  washes  his  hands 
in  water  in  the  bowls  brought  by  one  of  the  soldiers,  or  servants 
of  the  household2. 

On  Maundy  Thursday  there  was  no  reference  to  any 
ablution  of  the  chalice  or  of  the  priest's  fingers  over  it. 
On  Good  Friday  though  there  is  mention  of  the  former  all 
reference  to  the  latter  is  still  omitted.  On  Easter  Day 
there  is  no  mention  of  any  ablution  of  the  chalice,  and 
presumably  it  is  performed  by  the  subdeacon  to  whom 
both  chalice  and  tube  are  delivered  that  he  may  consume 
whatever  remains,  not  by  the  pope.   We  read: 

And  after  all  have  communicated  the  confessor  of  the  pope 
if  he  be  a  bishop  approaches,  but  if  not  another  bishop  of  the 
papal  household  brings  the  golden  chalice  covered  with  one 
end  of  the  linen  cloth,  the  other  end  hanging  over  his  left 
shoulder  according  to  custom.  And  after  the  bishop  the 
senior  of  the  acolytes  carries  the  cruets  of  wine  and  water  with 
two  cups  covered  with  the  cloth  with  which  the  altar-pall  is 
covered.  And  the  afore-mentioned  bishop  comes  with  the  said 
acolyte  to  the  pope,  and  the  second  bishop  washes  the  small 
cup  of  gold  with  wine.  Then  he  pours  wine  over  the  fingers  of 
the  pope  and  the  second  bishop  carries  the  perfusion  of  his 
fingers  to  the  altar,  and  the  cardinal  deacon  with  the  subdeacon 

1   Mabillon,  vol.  n.  pp.  307-8.  ■   Mabillon,  vol   11.  pp.  494-5. 


viii]  THE  ABLUTIONS  141 

drinks  it  according  to  custom.  The  confessor,  having  washed 
the  chalice,  pours  wine  and  the  acolyte  water  into  the  chalice, 
both  kneeling  before  the  pope,  and  the  lord  pope  washes  his 
mouth,  and  consumes  the  wine  in  the  afore-mentioned  chalice; 
and  if  any  remains  the  subdeacon  consumes  it  over  the  altar. 
Then  the  pope  washes  his  hands  in  the  great  golden  bowls,  and 
having  washed  them  he  goes  to  the  altar  and  so  finishes  mass1. 

It  may  be  interesting  to  trace  the  development  in  the 
later  Roman  printed  books. 

In  the  earliest  printed  Roman  missal  of  1474  the  rubric 
with  regard  to  the  ablutions  is  quite  short : 

After  the  consumption  of  the  blood  let  him  say  Quod  ore. 
Then  while  purifying  he  says  Corpus  tuum2. 

In  the  1505  edition  the  first  part  of  this  becomes: 

The  blood  being  drunk  he  afterwards  besprinkles  his  fingers, 
saying  Quod  ore3. 

In  1558  there  is  a  further  enlargement : 

The  blood  being  drunk  let  him  afterwards  besprinkle  his 
fingers  with  wine  and  water,  saying  Quod  ore4. 

In  a  Roman  missal  printed  at  Venice  in  1501,  probably 
for  Franciscan  use,  we  find  an  introduction  by  John 
Burchard  on  the  order  to  be  observed  in  saying  mass. 
With  regard  to  the  ablutions  we  read : 

He  reverently  consumes  the  whole  of  the  blood  with  the 
particle  put  in  the  chalice,  and  having  consumed  these  he 
says  Quod  ore  (another  prayer,  Corpus  tuum),  holding  out  the 
chalice  meanwhile  to  the  minister  who  pours  wine  into  it, 
and  with  it  the  priest  purifies  himself.  Then  the  same  minister 
pouring  wine  the  priest  washes  his  thumbs  and  forefingers  over 
the  chalice  and  consumes  this  ablution  also.  Then  he  wipes 
his  mouth  and  fingers  and  the  chalice,  he  folds  the  corporals, 
and  puts  them  down  in  the  middle  of  the  altar5. 

1  Mabillon,  vol.  II.  pp.  506-7.  2  Lippe,  vol.  I.  p.  211. 

3  Lippe,  vol.  1.  p.  211,  vol.  11.  p.  114.      4  Lippe,  vol.  1. p.  2 1 1,  vol.  11. p.  114. 

6  Legg,  Tracts  on  the  Mass,  p.  164. 


142  THE  ABLUTIONS  [ch. 

In  1502  Burchard  published  an  enlarged  version  of  his 
Ordo  missae,  and  in  this  form,  as  we  have  noticed,  it  was 
reprinted  many  times,  either  as  a  separate  tract,  or  as  an 
introduction  to  various  missals,  or  incorporated  in  other 
works.   We  now  read : 

And  standing  he  reverently  consumes  the  whole  of  the  blood 
with  the  particle  put  in  the  chalice.  And  having  consumed  these 
he  says  secretly  Quod  ore,  holding  out  the  chalice  meanwhile 
to  the  minister  who  pours  wine  into  it,  and  with  it  the  celebrant 
purifies  himself.  And  if  there  are  any  to  be  communicated  he 
communicates  them  before  he  washes  his  fingers,  the  order  on 
the  time  and  manner  of  communicating  the  people  given  in  the 
Presbyter  ale  being  observed.  Then  purifying  himself  and  the 
rest  of  those  who  have  communicated  he  says  secretly  Corpus 
tuum.  The  same  minister  again  pouring  wine,  the  celebrant 
washes  his  thumbs  and  forefingers  over  the  chalice,  and  con- 
sumes the  ablution  also.  Then  he  also  wipes  his  mouth  and 
the  chalice  with  the  purificator,  and  puts  the  purificator  over 
the  chalice,  and  over  it  the  paten,  and  places  it  as  seems  best 
to  him  on  the  right  side  or  left,  or  puts  it  down  in  the  middle 
of  the  altar1. 

We  see  here  the  distinction  clearly  drawn  between  a 
"purification"  and  an  "ablution,"  the  former  referring  to 
the  rinsing  of  the  priest's  or  communicant's  mouth  after 
partaking,  the  latter  to  the  washing  of  the  chalice  or  the 
priest's  fingers.    Usually  the  first  pouring  is  both. 

Burchard's  directions  about  what  is  to  be  done  when  a 
priest  duplicates  are  also  interesting.   We  read: 

These  or  any  other  priests  in  cases  permitted  by  law  wishing 
to  celebrate  twice  in  a  day  ought  not  in  the  first  mass  after 
the  consumption  of  the  blood  to  purify  themselves  or  to  con- 
sume the  ablution  of  the  fingers,  but  after  the  consumption  of 
the  blood  to  wash  his  fingers  over  the  chalice,  and  to  put  away 
this  ablution  into  some  clean  vessel,  and  to  purify  himself 
with  it  another  day  on  which  he  has  celebrated  one  mass  only 

1  Legg,  p.  164. 


viii]  THE  ABLUTIONS  143 

after  the  consumption  of  the  blood,  or  on  the  same  day  after 
the  said  second  mass,  or  to  consume  it  after  the  purification 
and  ablution  of  the  same  second  mass.  But  more  than  two 
masses  in  one  day  it  is  not  lawful  to  celebrate,  save  only  on  the 
day  of  the  nativity  of  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  on  which  any 
priest  otherwise  disposed  to  celebrate  is  able  to  celebrate  three 
masses.  And  also  when  intending  to  do  this  he  ought  not  in 
the  first  or  second  mass  to  purify  himself,  or  to  take  the  ablu- 
tion of  his  fingers,  but  to  put  it  away  in  some  clean  vessel,  and 
to  consume  it  after  the  purification  of  the  third  mass.  But  if 
anyone  intending  to  celebrate  more  masses  on  the  same  day 
has  purified  himself  in  the  first  or  second  mass  or  consumed  the 
ablution,  he  ought  not  to  celebrate  again  that  day1. 

In  the  Book  of  Ceremonies  of  Patricius  and  Marcellus  of 
15 16  we  read  after  the  communion: 

Then  the  pope  sits  and  an  acolyte  approaches  with  two  cups, 
one  of  gold  for  the  pope  and  the  other  for  the  credence,  carrying 
in  his  hands  ampullae  of  wine  and  water,  and  with  him  comes 
the  chief  of  the  cardinal  priests  who  pours  wine  over  the  golden 
cup,  and  the  pope  without  mitre  washes  his  fingers.  Then 
taking  his  mitre  he  washes  his  hands  in  the  accustomed  manner. 
Then  he  descends  to  the  altar  and  mass  is  finished2. 

The  directions  of  de  Grassis  (f  1528)  are  shorter: 

He  will  purify  his  fingers  in  the  accustomed  manner  and 
consume  the  ablution.  Then  if  there  shall  be  hosts  upon  the 
altar  he  will  wash  his  hands  on  the  epistle  side  without  mitre 
and  finish  mass3. 

In  the  post  Tridentine  missal  of  1570  the  rubric  dealing 
with  the  ablutions  has  become  much  more  detailed: 

He  consumes  the  whole  of  the  blood  with  the  particle.  And 
when  he  has  consumed  it  if  there  are  any  to  be  communicated 
let  him  communicate  them  before  he  purifies  himself.  After- 
wards he  says  Quod  ore.   Meanwhile  he  holds  out  the  chalice 

1  Legg,  p.  172. 

2  Lib.  11.  cap.  i.  §  6.    Ed.  Catalani,  vol.  II.  pp.  269-70. 

3  Lib.  11.  49,  f.  141.    See  p.  108. 


144  THE  ABLUTIONS  [ch. 

to  the  minister  who  pours  into  it  a  little  wine  with  which  he 
purifies  himself.  Then  he  proceeds  Corpus  tuum.  He  washes 
his  fingers,  wipes  them  and  consumes  the  ablution.  He  wipes 
the  chalice,  and  having  folded  the  corporal  covers  it  in  the 
accustomed  manner.  Then  he  proceeds  with  mass1. 

In  the  Ritus  Servandus  in  Celebratione  Missarum  prefixed 
to  this  missal  we  read : 

Standing  he  reverently  consumes  the  whole  of  the  blood  with 
the  particle  put  in  the  chalice.  And  when  he  has  consumed 
these  he  says  secretly  Quod  ore.  Afterwards  he  holds  out  the 
chalice  over  the  altar  to  the  minister  at  the  epistle  corner,  and 
on  his  pouring  in  wine  he  purifies  himself.  Then  he  washes  his 
thumbs  and  forefingers  over  the  chalice  and  wipes  them  with 
the  purificator :  saying  meanwhile  Corpus  tuum  he  consumes  the 
ablution.  Then  he  wipes  his  mouth  and  the  chalice  with  the 
purificator,  and  having  done  this  spreads  the  purificator  over 
the  chalice,  and  over  it  the  paten  and  over  the  paten  the  small 
pall,  and  covers  it  with  the  veil,  folds  the  corporal  and  puts 
it  back  in  the  burse  which  he  puts  over  the  chalice,  and  places 
it  on-the  altar  as  before.  If  there  are  any  to  be  communicated 
during  mass,  let  him  communicate  them  before  he  takes  the 
purification  and  before  he  washes  his  fingers;  and  when  they 
are  communicated  he  says  Quod  ore,  and  then  purifying  himself 
and  those  who  have  communicated  he  says  Corpus  tuum,  and 
does  the  rest  as  above. 

In  the  revised  missal  of  Clement  VIII  of  1604  the 
rubric  is  altered  but  little.  The  chief  modification  is  that 
the  priest  "wipes  his  mouth  and  the  chalice"  before 
folding  the  corporal.  In  the  first  part  of  the  Ritus  ser- 
vandus there  is  likewise  very  little  change,  but  we  are  told 
that  the  priest  "washes  his  thumbs  and  forefingers  with 
wine  and  water  over  the  chalice."  The  directions  when 
there  are  communicants  are  much  more  precise  and  may 
be  quoted.   We  read: 

1  Lippe,  vol.  11.  p.  246. 


vni]  THE  ABLUTIONS  145 

If  there  are  any  to  be  communicated  during  mass  the  priest 
after  the  consumption  of  the  blood  before  he  purifies  himself, 
makes  a  genuflexion  and  puts  the  consecrated  particles  in  a 
pyx,  or,  if  there  are  few  to  be  communicated,  on  the  paten, 
unless  they  have  been  put  in  a  pyx  or  another  chalice  from  the 
beginning.... When  all  are  communicated  he  returns  to  the 
altar  saying  nothing,  and  does  not  give  them  the  blessing  be- 
cause he  will  give  it  at  the  end  of  mass.  If  the  particles  were 
put  on  the  corporal  he  wipes  it  with  the  paten,  and  if  there  were 
any  fragments  on  it,  he  puts  them  into  the  chalice.  Then  he 
says  secretly  Quod  ore  and  purifies  himself  saying  Corpus  tuum, 
and  does  the  rest  as  above.  And  a  minister  holding  a  vessel 
with  wine  and  water  in  his  right  hand  and  a  napkin  in  his  left, 
a  little  behind  the  priest,  offers  them  the  purification  and  the 
napkin  to  wipe  their  mouths. 

The  changes  made  in  the  Roman  missal  by  Urban  VIII 
in  1634  na-d  practically  no  effect  on  the  directions  dealing 
with  the  ablutions,  and  they  are  almost  verbally  identical 
with  those  which  appeared  in  the  edition  of  1604. 

With  some  few  exceptions  the  reformed  missal  of  1570, 
which  was  revised  under  the  authority  of  the  council  of 
Trent,  was  imposed  upon  the  whole  Roman  communion 
by  the  bull  of  Pius  V,  and  in  ordinary  churches  no  deviation 
from  this  standard  was  allowed.  It  was  the  same  also 
with  the  editions  of  the  missal  as  revised  by  Clement  VIII 
and  Urban  VIII.  Pius  V  however  in  his  bull  did  except 
those  churches  which  could  show  a  prescription  of  two 
hundred  years  for  their  own  local  uses,  and  it  was  con- 
tinued after  the  later  reforms.  Consequently  the  ancient 
customs  of  such  churches  as  those  of  Rouen,  Lyons, 
Chartres,  as  also  of  the  Carthusian,  Carmelite  and  Domi- 
nican orders  still  survived.  At  Rouen  as  late  as  the 
beginning  of  the  eighteenth  century  the  ceremonial  at  the 
ablutions  was  still  much  the  same  as  that  described  by 
John  of  Avranches  in  the  eleventh  century. 

De  Moleon  gives  some  interesting  particulars  of  ancient 

L.  E.  10 


146  THE  ABLUTIONS  [ch. 

ceremonial   still   surviving   when   he   wrote   in    17 18   in 
various  French  churches.   We  read: 

In  all  the  missals  of  Rouen  printed  up  to  last  century... there 
is  only  one  purification  or  ablution  with  wine  as  at  Lyons  and 
among  the  Carthusians.  The  last  ablution  with  water  and  wine 
was  not  then  practised  and  they  did  not  compel  the  priest  to 
drink  the  rinsing  of  his  fingers.  He  went  to  wash  his  hands  at 
the  piscina  or  lavatory  which  was  near  the  altar  (sacerdos 
vadat  ad  lavatorium).  The  same  thing  is  seen  in  the  missal  of 
the  Carmelites  of  the  year  1574,  and  the  Ritual  of  Rouen  re- 
quires that  there  should  be  one  near  every  altar  as  in  the  church 
of  St  Etienne  des  Tonneliers  at  Rouen1. 

A  similar  custom  prevailed  also  at  that  date  at  Chartres. 
We  read: 

The  deacon  brings  the  cruets  and  pours  the  ablutions.  This 
is  the  only  place  where  the  deacon  serves  the  priest,  since  a  boy 
gives  him  water  to  wash  in  a  bowl,  as  at  the  lavabo,  and  pours 
it  into  the  piscina,  so  that  he  is  not  obliged  to  drink  the 
rinsing  of  his  fingers.  Formerly  this  was  practised  everywhere, 
and  it  is  still  practised  to  this  day  at  Lyons  and  among  the 
Carthusians  who  have  continued  to  maintain  their  ancient 
customs2. 

Nothing  is  said,  we  may  note  in  conclusion,  in  any  of 
the  Mozarabic  service  books  about  the  ablutions,  but  in 
practice  those  usual  in  the  rest  of  the  Western  Church, 
of  the  chalice  and  of  the  priest's  fingers,  have  been 
adopted3.  The  modern  Ambrosian  rite  has  taken  over  not 
only  the  Roman  practice,  but  the  Roman  rubrics  also. 

We  have  now  traced  out  from  the  various  documents 
the  chief  points  in  the  history  of  the  ceremony  of  the 
ablutions  from  the  time  that  we  first  hear  of  any  such 
thing  until  the  present  day,  reserving,  however,  the  con- 
sideration of  specifically  British  authorities  for  separate 

1  De  Moleon,  Voyages  Liturgiques  de  France,  p.  315. 

2  De  Moleon,  p.  230. 

3  Lesley,  Missale  Mixtutn,  p.  233.    P.L.  LXXXV.  col.  566. 


viiij  THE  ABLUTIONS  147 

treatment.  In  the  earliest  days  and  for  many  centuries 
there  appear  to  have  been  no  ceremonial  ablutions  at  all, 
either  of  the  chalice  or  of  the  priest's  hands  after  the 
communion,  during  mass,  but  only  a  necessary  and  reverent 
washing  of  them  afterwards  in  the  sacristy.  By  about  the 
ninth  century  however,  if  not  earlier,  the  washing  of 
the  priest's  hands  had  been  introduced  into  the  ordinary 
course  of  the  service  and  took  place  immediately  after  the 
communion.  At  about  the  same  period  we  find  that  the 
washing  of  the  vessels  was  transferred,  at  any  rate  in 
some  churches,  from  the  sacristy  to  a  place  near  the  altar, 
the  water  employed  being  reverently  poured  away  in  a 
place  provided  for  the  purpose.  Generally  it  seems  to  have 
been  performed  by  the  deacon  and  subdeacon,  not  by  the 
priest,  but  still  apparently  after  the  service  was  over.  The 
next  century  we  read  of  the  washing  of  the  priest's  hands 
immediately  after  communion  as  a  firmly  established 
custom.  In  the  eleventh  century  we  hear  of  an  ablution 
of  the  chalice,  presumably  with  wine  which  is  consumed 
by  the  priest,  and  that  it  is  traditional  in  well-ordered 
churches.  This  takes  place  before  the  final  cleansing  of  the 
vessels,  which  also  in  some  churches  has  now  begun  to 
take  place  during  the  service.  There  is  also  before  the 
washing  of  the  priest's  hands  in  bowls  or  at  the  piscina,  an 
ablution  of  his  fingers,  sometimes  in  another  chalice,  but 
sometimes  in  that  of  the  mass,  whether  with  wine  or  water 
is  not  mentioned,  but  presumably  with  the  former,  and 
it  is  consumed  by  the  priest  or  ministers.  In  the  twelfth 
century  we  find  it  clearly  stated  that  the  ablution  of  the 
priest's  fingers  is  with  wine  which  is  consumed,  though  we 
hear  also  after  a  first  ablution  of  a  sprinkling  with  water. 
There  is  a  cleansing  of  the  chalice  with  wine  during  the 
service  by  the  minister,  and  this  is  sometimes  consumed 
and  sometimes  poured  away.  The  water  in  which  the 
priest's  hands  were  washed  is  always  put  into  the  piscina. 
By  this  time  it  seems  that  the  method  of  making  the 

10 — 2 


148  THE  ABLUTIONS  [ch.viii 

ablutions  is  becoming  more  or  less  fixed.  With  elabora- 
tions on  occasions,  such  as  the  ablution  of  the  priest's 
ringers  by  the  subdeacon  or  other  minister,  practically  the 
same  use  persists  for  some  centuries.  In  different  places 
there  was  variety  of  detail,  sometimes  wine  was  used  for 
the  ablutions  both  of  the  chalice  and  of  the  priest's  fingers, 
but  sometimes  water  for  the  latter.  In  some  churches 
there  were  more  than  two  ablutions,  and  two  of  the  chalice 
before  that  of  the  priest's  fingers,  one  being  regarded  as 
for  the  purification  of  the  mouth.  Any  ablution  of  the 
chalice  or  of  the  priest's  fingers  during  the  service  is  of 
late  introduction  according  to  the  evidence,  and  was  inter- 
polated for  the  sake  of  additional  reverence,  being  intended 
as  a  preliminary  to  the  actual  cleansing  of  the  hands  and 
vessels  after  mass  was  over.  In  some  places  however  this 
necessary  cleansing  of  the  vessels  came  to  be  performed 
during  the  service  immediately  after  the  ceremonial  ablu- 
tions, but  in  others  the  older  practice  of  postponing  it 
until  the  end  of  the  service  continued  at  any  rate  till  the 
thirteenth  century,  the  smallest  fragments  of  the  host 
being  consumed  at  the  same  time,  a  survival  from  the 
days  when  all  the  consecrated  remains  were  consumed 
after  mass. 


CHAPTER   IX 
THE  ABLUTIONS  IN  BRITAIN 

IT  may  be  interesting  to  supplement  our  general  enquiry 
into  the  historical  development  of  the  ceremony  of  the 
ablutions  by  giving  also  its  outline  as  found  in  documents 
which  illustrate  English  or  British  usage. 

The  Admonition  of  the  pseudo  Leo  with  its  rules  for  the 
washing  of  the  sacred  vessels  and  the  priest's  hands  was 
evidently  known  and  regarded  as  authoritative  in  England 
as  well  as  on  the  continent  at  an  early  date.  It  is  found 
in  Cotton  MS.,  Tiberius  C.  I,  of  the  British  Museum1,  a 
manuscript  belonging  to  the  diocese  of  Salisbury,  and 
written  in  the  latter  part  of  the  eleventh  century,  perhaps 
in  the  episcopate  of  St  Osmund,  or  even  earlier,  and  as  in 
later  days  it  is  for  use  at  the  Provincial  Council  of  the 
bishop.  The  earliest  examples  of  a  piscina  or  "clean 
place"  as  required  by  the  Admonition  in  England  as  else- 
where appear  to  have  been  in  the  floor  and  similar  to 
what  is  described  in  the  Consnetudines  of  Ulrich  of  Cluny, 
specimens  which  date  perhaps  from  the  early  thirteenth 
century  still  surviving  in  two  of  the  chapels  of  Lincoln 
Cathedral,  and  other  places.  Of  wall  piscinas  there  appear 
to  be  no  examples  in  England  any  more  than  in  France 
before  the  middle  of  the  twelfth  century,  but  Norman 
examples  exist  at  St  Martin's,  Leicester,  Ryarsh,  Kent,  in 
the  crypt  of  Gloucester  Cathedral,  and  two  at  Romsey 
Abbey,  while  at  Jesus  College,  Cambridge,  there  is  one 
approaching  early  English2.  The  work  of  John  of  Avranches 
De  Ecclesiaslicis  Officiis  giving  the  use   of  Rouen  was 

1  f.  191  b.    Cf.  Chambers,  Divine  Worship  in  England,  p.  n. 

2  Parker,  Glossary  of  Terms  used  in  Architecture,  p.  164. 


150  THE  ABLUTIONS  IN  BRITAIN  [ch. 

known  and  used  at  the  abbey  of  Llanthony  in  the  twelfth 
century1,  and  so  it  is  not  improbable  that  his  elaborate 
ceremonial  for  the  ablutions  was  imitated  as  well  as  other 
things.  The  ceremonial  of  Rouen  evidently  had  consider- 
able influence  in  Britain,  the  Lay  Folks  Mass  Book  being 
a  description  of  an  adaptation  of  it2,  while  the  Hereford 
Holy  Week  ceremonial  is  also  derived  from  it3.  The  Lay 
Folks  Mass  Book  in  its  present  form  belongs  to  the 
thirteenth  century,  and  in  its  original  text,  which  appears 
to  have  been  in  French,  to  the  twelfth4.  In  a  manuscript 
of  about  the  year  1375  in  the  British  Museum  we  read : 

Loke  pater-noster  thou  be  sayande, 
I-whils  tho  preste  is  rynsande. 
When  tho  preste  has  rinsynge  done, 
Opon  thi  fete  thou  stonde  up  sone5. 

There  is  also  a  shorter  text  of  later  date  (c.  1450) : 

Whanne  the  prest  hath  the  rensynge  don, 
He  wol  make  an  ende  son6. 

Nothing  is  said  whether  the  rinsing  is  that  of  the  chalice 
or  of  the  priest's  fingers,  but  probably  the  reference  is  to 
both.  In  a  manuscript  at  Gonville  and  Caius  College, 
Cambridge,  also  of  the  middle  of  the  fifteenth  century,  we 
find  "receyuande,"  "receuyng"  instead  of  "rinsing7,"  and 
as  the  reference  must  be  to  the  same  ceremony,  the 
ablution  was  evidently  consumed. 

Alexander  of  Hales  (f  1245),  who  was  an  Englishman, 
speaks  of  the  washing  of  the  priest's  hands,  as  we  have 
already  noticed,  and  practically  reproduces  the  remarks 
of  Innocent  III.   We  read: 

These  things  being  done,  the  priest  washes  his  hands,  not 
that  he  has  contracted  any  uncleanness  in  touching  the  Lord's 

1  Bishop,  Liturgica  Historica,  pp.  299,  300. 

2  Simmons,  Lay  Folks  Mass  Book,  p.  xxxii. 

3  Bishop,  pp.  276-300.  *  Simmons,  pp.  xxxi,  xli-xliii. 

6  Simmons,  p.  54.  •  Simmons,  p.  55.  '  Simmons,  p.  55. 


ix]  THE  ABLUTIONS  IN  BRITAIN  151 

sacrament,  but  rather  out  of  reverence  for  the  sacrament  and 
that  he  may  remember  his  own  unworthiness,  and  that  he  may 
account  it  unfitting  that  the  hands  which  have  handled  the 
incorruptible  body  should  touch  a  corruptible  body,  or  any- 
thing unclean  until  they  are  carefully  washed,  and  also  in  order 
that  if  anything  has  by  chance  adhered  to  his  hands  in  touching 
the  sacrament  it  may  be  washed  away.  And  the  water  of 
ablution  ought  to  be  poured  away  honourably  into  a  clean  place, 
that  the  dignity  of  the  sacrament  may  be  more  reverently 
esteemed1. 

The  Consuetudinaries  of  Salisbury  (thirteenth  century), 
Wells  (thirteenth century),  and  Exeter  (fourteenth  century), 
all  ultimately  Sarum,  also  mention  only  the  earlier  washing 
of  the  hands : 

After  the  reception  of  the  sacrament,  while  the  priest  goes  to 
wash  his  hands,  let  the  deacon  fold  the  corporals2. 

It  is  the  same  also  in  the  Vernon  MS.  of  the  thirteenth 
or  fourteenth  century, — A  treatise  of  the  manner  &  mede 
of  the  mass.   We  read : 

Whon  he  hath  used,  he  walketh  riht 
To  lauatorie,  ther  hit  is  diht 
For  to  wassche  his  hende. 
So  gostly  he  comes  a-geyn 
Un-to  god  for-to  preyen 
Sum  special  grace3. 

The  question  of  the  ablutions  and  particularly  what  was 
to  be  done  when  a  priest  celebrated  twice  in  the  same  day, 
occupied  the  attention  of  various  British  councils  about 
the  beginning  of  the  thirteenth  century.  Among  the 
canons  of  the  council  of  Westminster  in  1200  we  read: 

When  the  same  priest  celebrates  twice  in  one  day  after  the 
first  celebration  and  the  consumption  of  the  blood  let  nothing 

1  Summa  Theol.  vol.  ill.  p.  327.    See  p.  131. 

2  Frere,  The  Use  of  Sarum,  vol.  1.  p.  88.  Reynolds,  Wells  Cathedral. 
Ordinate  et  Statnta,  p.  38.   Dalton,  Ordinale  Exon.  (H.B.S.)  vol.  1.  p.  298. 

3  Simmons,  p.  145. 


152  THE  ABLUTIONS  IN  BRITAIN  [ch. 

be  poured  into  the  chalice,  but  of  course  let  the  drainings  of 
the  chalice  be  most  carefully  swallowed  after  the  first  cele- 
bration, and  the  fingers  sucked,  or  licked  with  the  tongue, 
and  washed,  the  ablution  being  reserved  in  a  clean  vessel 
provided  specially  for  the  purpose,  and  let  this  ablution  be 
consumed  after  the  second  celebration.  Let  these  things  be  so 
done  unless  at  the  first  celebration  a  deacon  or  other  proper 
minister  be  present  who  can  consume  the  ablution1. 

At  the  council  of  Durham  in  1220  we  find  a  washing 
of  the  paten  also,  and  now  any  innocent  person  is  allowed 
to  consume  the  ablutions.  Two  of  the  decrees  read : 

And  if  he  receives  it  (the  host)  from  the  paten  as  some  do 
after  the  celebration  of  mass  let  him  cause  both  paten  and 
chalice  to  be  besprinkled  with  water,  or  if  he  does  not  receive 
it  from  the  paten,  the  chalice  only.  And  let  the  priest  have  near 
the  altar  a  most  clean  cloth  wrapped  all  round  in  another 
cloth,  fitly  and  properly  covered,  on  which  after  the  reception 
of  the  healthful  sacrament,  he  may  wipe  his  fingers  and  his 
lips,  when  he  has  washed  them.... Also  if  the  priest  has  of 
necessity  to  celebrate  twice  by  any  chance  in  a  day — which 
except  on  Christmas  Day,  or  Easter  Day,  or  when  a  corpse  is 
present  in  church  for  burial,  or  some  evident  necessity  compel 
we  forbid  to  be  done — after  the  first  celebration  let  the  drainings 
of  the  chalice  be  most  carefully  swallowed,  and  what  was  poured 
over  his  fingers  into  the  chalice  be  reserved  in  a  clean  vessel 
specially  provided  for  the  purpose,  and  be  consumed  after 
the  celebration  of  the  second  mass,  unless  by  chance  at  the 
first  celebration  a  deacon  or  other  proper  minister,  or  some 
innocent  person,  be  present  who  can  consume  the  ablution 
without  hurt  to  conscience2. 

The  repeated  expression  "after  the  celebration"  does 
not  mean  apparently  after  the  conclusion  of  the  service, 
but  only  after  the  communion,  the  remainder  of  the 
liturgy  being  considered  presumably  of  negligible  import- 
ance. 

1  Wilkins,  vol.  1.  p.  505.  2  Wilkins,  vol.  1.  p.  579. 


ix]  THE  ABLUTIONS  IN  BRITAIN  153 

In  the  Constitutions  of  Richard  le  Poor  (c.  1220),  Bishop 
of  Salisbury,  we  find  the  same  provision  for  the  washing 
of  both  paten  and  chalice,  and  for  the  consumption  of  the 
ablutions,  and  use  of  the  purificator,  expressed  in  identical 
words,  and  again,  "some  innocent  person"  is  allowed  to 
take  the  ablutions1. 

At  the  council  of  Oxford  in  1222  we  have  again  the 
same  rule  to  be  observed  when  a  priest  duplicates: 

And  let  the  priest  after  he  has  consumed  the  Lord's  body  and 
blood  at  the  altar,  if  he  has  himself  to  celebrate  the  solemnities 
of  the  mass  a  second  time  on  the  same  day,  not  presume  to 
consume  the  wine  poured  into  the  chalice,  or  over  his  fingers2. 

We  find  an  almost  identical  order  in  the  Constitutions 
of  Archbishop  Langton,  also  in  1222,  though  water  is 
allowed  as  an  alternative  to  wine: 

After  the  priest  has  consumed  the  body  of  Christ  and  the 
blood  let  him  not  dare  to  consume  the  water  or  wine  put  into 
the  chalice,  or  poured  over  his  fingers,  if  on  the  same  day  he 
has  of  necessity  to  celebrate  the  solemnities  of  the  mass  again3. 

The  council  of  Aberdeen  in  1230  repeated  with  but 
slight  alteration  the  directions  of  the  council  of  Durham  in 
1220,  ordering  the  ablution  of  the  priest's  fingers  to  "be 
consumed  by  some  person  of  good  conscience,"  or  reserved 
until  after  the  second  celebration  in  a  clean  vessel,  and 
adding  words  from  the  decree  of  the  council  of  West-* 
minster  in  1200 — "after  the  first  celebration  and  the  con- 
sumption of  the  body  and  blood  let  nothing  which  is 
consumed  by  the  celebrant  be  poured  into  the  chalice,  but 
only  after  the  following  celebration4." 

The  Constitutions  of  Edmund  of  Abingdon,  Archbishop 
of  Canterbury,  of  the  year  1236,  have  the  same  order  about 
the  ablution  of  the  paten  and  chalice,  and  the  use  of  the 

1  Spelman,  vol.  n.  p.  148.  2  Wilkins,  vol.  1.  p.  586. 

3  Wilkins,  vol.  1.  p.  594. 

4  Registrum  Aberdonense,  vol.  II.  p.  27. 


154  THE  ABLUTIONS  IN  BRITAIN  [ch. 

purificator,  but  the  direction  about  what  is  to  be  done 
when  a  priest  duplicates  is  omitted1.  Both  the  Durham 
decrees  with  regard  to  the  ablutions  reappear  with  slight 
modifications  in  certain  anonymous  constitutions  of  per- 
haps a  little  later  date2. 

By  the  beginning  of  the  thirteenth  century  the  ablutions 
had  evidently  become  a  regular  feature  of  the  liturgy  in 
Britain,  and  at  the  end  of  the  century  we  find  references 
to  them  in  the  service-books.  In  the  pontifical  of  Anianus, 
Bishop  of  Bangor  (i 267-1305),  there  is  a  mention  of  the 
threefold  ablution,  though  no  particulars  are  given.  After 
Corpus  ei  sanguis  we  read: 

After  the  first  effusion  let  him  say  Quod  ore,  after  the  second 
effusion  Haec  nos  communio,  after  the  third  effusion  Gratias 
tibi.  After  the  completion  of  mass  let  the  priest  say  Placeat 
tibi3. 

No  distinction  is  drawn  between  the  different  ablutions, 
but  perhaps  the  first  and  third  are  of  the  chalice,  and  the 
second  of  the  priest's  fingers  in  the  chalice. 

In  a  manuscript  Sarum  missal  (perhaps  earlier  than 
1300),  formerly  belonging  to  the  Earl  of  Crawford,  and  now 
in  the  John  Rylands  Library  at  Manchester,  we  read : 

Then  let  the  body  and  blood  be  consumed,  and  afterwards 
let  this  prayer  be  said,  Gratias  tibi.  Then  let  him  proceed  to 
wash  his  fingers  and  the  chalice,  and  meanwhile  say  Haec  nos 
communio,  Benedicta,  Quod  ore.  Mass  being  finished,  with 
head  bowed  before  the  altar  and  hands  joined,  let  the  priest 
say  Placeat  tibi4. 

The  three  prayers  suggest  that  there  are  three  washings, 
perhaps  two  of  the  chalice  and  one  of  the  priest's  fingers, 
but  nothing  is  said  about  wine  or  water. 

A  manuscript  Sarum  missal  of  about  the  same  date,  now 

1  Spelman,  vol.  II.  p.  206.  2  Spelman,  vol.  11.  p.  232. 

3  Henderson,  York  Missal,  vol.  1  .  p.  335. 
*  Legg,  Sarum  Missal,  p.  228. 


ix]  THE  ABLUTIONS  IN  BRITAIN  155 

at  the  library  of  the  Arsenal  in  Paris,  has  the  same  rubrics 
at  this  point,  save  for  the  omission  of  that  before  Placeat 
tibi1. 

In  a  manuscript  containing  the  order  for  a  nuptial  mass, 
probably  of  the  first  half  of  the  fifteenth  century,  and 
now  in  the  British  Museum,  we  have  a  rearrangement  of 
the  Crawford  form  of  the  rubric  which  makes  nonsense, 
due,  it  would  seem,  to  an  unintelligent  attempt  to  make 
Gratias  tibi  the  final  prayer,  as  it  is  according  to  another 
Sarum  tradition.   We  read: 

Then  let  him  proceed  to  wash  his  fingers  and  the  chalice, 
and  meanwhile  say  Quod  ore,  Haec  nos  communio.  Then  let  the 
body  and  blood  be  consumed,  and  afterwards  let  this  prayer 
be  said,  Gratias  tibi2. 

In  a  manuscript  Sarum  missal  of  a  little  later  date 
than  the  Crawford  book,  now  in  the  University  Library 
at  Bologna,  the  rubrics  with  regard  to  the  ablutions  are 
contradictory,  for  though  prayers  are  provided  for  three 
ablutions,  where  the  liquid  to  be  used  is  prescribed  they 
are  as  distinctly  limited  to  two,  due  apparently  to  a 
combination  of  two  different  sets  of  rubrics  without  the 
necessary  adjustment.   We  read: 

At  the  first  washing  Corpus  tuum,  at  the  second  washing  let 
him  say  Quod  ore,  at  the  third  washing  let  him  say  Haec  nos 
communio.  The  prayer  being  said  let  the  priest  take  the  chalice 
and  go  to  the  right  corner  of  the  altar,  and  let  the  subdeacon 
minister  to  him  wine  once  and  water  once,  and  let  the  priest 
say  these  prayers  following.  At  the  first  washing  of  his  hands 
in  the  chalice  let  him  say  Gratias  tibi.  Then  let  the  priest  turn 
the  chalice  over  on  the  paten,  and  with  hands  joined  say  before 
the  altar  Perceptio  corporis.  Then  let  him  go  to  the  sacrarium 
to  wash  his  hands,  and  again  with  hands  joined  let  him  return 
to  the  altar  to  say  the  collects;  and  so  let  mass  be  finished3. 

1  Legg,  Sarum  Missal,  p.  228. 

2  Legg,  Tracts  on  the  Mass  (H.B.S.),  p.  266. 
8  Legg,  Sarum  Missal,  p.  228. 


156  THE  ABLUTIONS  IN  BRITAIN  [ch. 

In  a  manuscript  Sarum  missal  of  perhaps  the  begin- 
ning of  the  fourteenth  century  in  Cambridge  University 
Library  (ff.  4.  44),  in  a  manuscript  manual  of  slightly  later 
date  belonging  to  the  Rev.  Edmund  McClure,  and  also  in  a 
manuscript  manual  of  the  fifteenth  century  which  belonged 
to  the  late  Dr  Rock,  we  find  different  rubrics  again.  We 
read: 

Then  let  him  receive.  After  this  let  the  minister  approach 
and  pour  wine  or  water  into  the  chalice,  and  if  it  be  necessary 
that  the  priest  should  celebrate  again  let  him  receive  nothing 
of  the  effusion,  but  put  it  in  the  sacrarium.  After  the  first 
effusion  let  him  say  Quod  ore,  after  the  second  effusion  Haec 
nos  communio,  after  the  third  effusion  let  him  say  with  great 
devotion  this  prayer,  Gr  alias  tibi,  A  dor  emus  cruets,  Lavabo  inter 
innocentes.  After  the  completion  of  mass  let  the  priest,  with 
body  bowed  before  the  altar  and  hands  joined,  say  this  prayer, 
Placeat  tibi1. 

Nothing  is  said  about  the  liquid  to  be  used  for  particular 
ablutions.  We  note  the  addition  of  Adoremus  crucis  after 
Gratias  tibi,  and  of  Lavabo  inter  innocentes  presumably  at 
the  washing  of  the  hands. 

In  the  Sarum  Customary,  given  in  manuscripts  of  the 
Ordinal  of  the  end  of  the  fourteenth  century,  we  find 
much  more  elaborate  rubrics,  incorporating  those  of  the 
more  ancient  Consuetudinary  and  of  the  missals,  and  also 
the  substance  of  the  decree  of  the  council  of  Westminster 
in  1200  on  duplication.  We  read  according  to  the  manu- 
script at  Corpus  Christi  College,  Oxford: 

Then  let  him  consume  the  blood,  and  having  consumed  it 
let  the  priest  go  to  the  right  corner  of  the  altar  with  the  chalice 
between  his  hands,  his  fingers  still  joined  as  before,  and  let  the 
subdeacon  approach  and  pour  into  the  chalice  wine  and  water, 
and  let  the  priest  rinse  his  hands  lest  any  remnants  of  the  body 
and  blood  remain  on  his  fingers  or  in  the  chalice.   But  when 

1  Legg,  Tracts  on  the  Mass,  pp.  267-8.  Cf.  Rock,  Church  of  our 
Fathers,  Ed.  Hart  and  Frere,  1905,  vol.  iv.  p.  193. 


ix]  THE  ABLUTIONS  IN  BRITAIN  157 

any  (priest)  has  to  celebrate  twice  in  one  day  then  he  ought 
not  to  receive  any  ablution,  but  to  put  it  in  the  sacrarium  or 
in  a  clean  vessel  until  the  end  of  the  second  mass,  and  then 
let  each  ablution  be  consumed.  After  the  first  infusion  let 
this  prayer  follow,  Quod  ore.  Then  let  him  wash  his  fingers  in 
the  bowl  of  the  chalice  with  wine  poured  by  the  subdeacon. 
And  this  being  drunk  this  prayer,  Haec  nos  communio,  follows. 
Then  let  the  subdeacon  pour  water  into  the  chalice,  and  this 
being  drunk  let  the  priest  go  to  the  middle  of  the  altar  and 
bow  and  say  with  devotion  this  prayer,  Gratias  tibi.  And  with 
this  prayer  let  the  priest  go  to  the  right  corner  of  the  altar 
and  wash  his  hands.  Meanwhile  let  the  deacon  fold  the  cor- 
porals. Let  the  subdeacon  carry  the  book  to  the  right  corner 
of  the  altar.  And  let  the  deacon  take  the  chalice  which  lies 
on  the  paten,  and  when  the  priest  returns  to  the  right  corner 
of  the  altar  if  any  of  the  infusion  remain  let  him  hold  it  to  the 
mouth  of  the  priest  for  him  to  consume.  After  the  reception 
of  the  sacrament,  while  the  priest  goes  to  wash  his  hands,  let 
the  deacon  fold  the  corporals  and  put  them  back  in  the  case. 
And  afterwards  let  him  place  the  corporals  on  the  chalice 
with  the  chalice  veil,  and  commit  the  chalice  also  to  the  acolyte 
until  the  Post  Communion  is  said,  and  when  Per  omnia  saecula 
saeculorum  is  said  after  the  prayer  let  him  carry  it  away 
with  the  same  solemnity  with  which  he  brought  it  in.  When 
he  has  washed  his  hands  let  the  priest  return  to  the  right  corner 
of  the  altar,  and  say  the  Communion  with  his  ministers1. 

The  passage  "After  the  reception. .  .brought  it  in"  is 
taken  verbatim  from  the  Consuetudinary. 

Apparently  the  ablution  of  the  chalice  like  that  of  the 
priest's  fingers  is  with  wine,  but  the  third  pouring  into  the 
chalice  is  now  of  water.  According  to  another  text  of  the 
Ordinal,  however,  in  a  manuscript  at  Salisbury  Cathedral, 
the  third  pouring  also  is  of  wine.  This  text  omits,  probably 
by  an  error  of  the  copyist,  the  statement  that  when  the 
priest  goes  to  the  right  corner  of  the  altar  he  "washes  his 

1  Frere,  Use  of  S arum,  vol.  1.  pp.  87-8.    See  p.  151  above. 


158  THE  ABLUTIONS  IN  BRITAIN  [ch. 

hands"  while  the  deacon  folds  the  corporals,  though  the 
second  reference  to  this  washing  still  remains1. 

In  a  missal  written  for  Colewich2  about  the  year  1400 
and  now  in  the  British  Museum  we  find  the  directions  of 
the  Customary  according  to  the  text  of  the  manuscript  at 
Corpus  Christi  College,  Oxford,  incorporated  with  but  few 
alterations  in  the  ordinary  of  the  mass  instead  of  the 
shorter  rubrics.  Water  is  prescribed  for  the  third  ablution, 
and  when  the  priest  washes  his  hands  at  the  sacrarium  he 
says  Lavabo  inter  innocentes.  At  the  end  we  read:  "After 
the  reception  of  the  sacrament,  etc.,  as  above  on  the  First 
Sunday  of  the  Advent  of  the  Lord,"  the  details  not  being 
repeated3. 

In  another  missal  of  about  the  same  date,  which  was 
presented  to  Oswestry  church  in  1554,  and  regarded  by 
Maskell  as  perhaps  belonging  to  the  use  of  Bangor,  we 
find  another  version  of  the  rubrics  from  the  Sarum 
Customary.  As  in  the  Roman  missal  the  priest  is  directed 
to  consume  "the  whole  of  the  blood."   It  then  continues: 

And  having  consumed  it  and  put  the  chalice  down  upon  the 
altar,  bowing  with  great  veneration  in  the  middle  of  the  altar 
and  looking  at  the  cross,  let  the  priest  say  this  prayer  following 
Gratias  tibi,  and  this  being  said  let  the  priest  go.... 

We  notice  that  Gratias  tibi  here  follows  the  consumption 
of  the  elements  immediately,  as  in  the  Crawford  missal. 
There  are  only  two  ablutions,  the  first  of  the  priest's 
fingers  with  wine,  the  second  of  the  chalice  with  wine  or 
water,  the  different  uses  of  the  two  manuscripts  of  the 
Customary  being  thus  made  alternatives,  and  both  may 
be  poured  by  the  subdeacon  "or  some  other  minister." 
The  words  "After  the  first  infusion  let  this  prayer  follow, 
Quod  ore,"  are  omitted,  and  Quod  ore  takes  the  place  of 
Haec  nos  in  the  text  as  given  in  the  Customary,  while 

1  Frere,  vol.  1.  pp.  87-8.         2  Probably  Colwich,  Staffs. 
3  Harl.  MS.  4919.    Legg,  Tracts  on  the  Mass,  pp.  266-7. 


ix]  THE  ABLUTIONS  IN  BRITAIN  159 

Haec  nos  is  now  said  after  the  final  ablution  before  the 
priest  returns  to  the  middle  of  the  altar.  At  this  point 
there  is  an  insertion  and  we  read : 

The  prayer  being  finished,  let  the  priest  go  to  the  middle  of 
the  altar  and  putting  the  chalice  down  there  so  as  to  lie  upon 
the  paten,  and  bowing  with  great  veneration,  and  looking  at 
the  cross,  let  him  say  in  memory  of  the  Lord's  passion  Adoremus 
cruris. 

The  reference  to  the  cross  is  thus  repeated  in  similar 
words.  The  section  "Meanwhile  let  the  deacon. .  .to  con- 
sume," is  omitted,  as  also  the  section  "and  give  the  chalice 
. .  .brought  it  in."  We  read  also  that  the  priest  places  the 
corporals  "with  the  chalice  veil  or  napkin"  on  the  chalice1. 
In  a  manuscript  Sarum  missal  of  about  the  middle  of 
the  fifteenth  century  now  in  the  Bodleian  Library,  Oxford 
(Rawl.  Liturg.  C  2),  we  find  another  form  of  the  directions 
of  the  Sarum  Customary,  akin  to  those  of  the  Oswestry 
missal,  Gratia s  tibi  being  said  after  the  priest's  communion 
and  before  the  ablutions,  but  with  various  other  altera- 
tions, and  without  the  lengthy  omissions  of  the  Oswestry 
manuscript.   We  read: 

Then  let  him  consume  the  blood,  and  having  consumed  it 
and  put  down  the  chalice  on  the  right  corner  of  the  altar, 
bowing  with  great  veneration  before  the  middle  of  the  altar, 
and  looking  at  the  cross  let  him  say,  Gratias  tibi. .  .Jesu  Christi, 
(then  let  him  retire  from  the  altar)  et  precor . .  .in  vitam  eternam. 
Then  let  the  priest  go  to  the  right  corner  of  the  altar,  and  take 
the  chalice  again  between  his  hands,  his  fingers  still  joined  as 
before,  and  the  subdeacon  approaching  let  him  pour  wine  into 
the  chalice,  and  let  the  priest  rinse  his  fingers  in  the  bowl  of 
the  chalice,  lest  any  remnants  of  the  body  and  blood  remain  on 
his  fingers  or  in  the  chalice.  But  when  any  priest  has  to  cele- 
brate twice  in  one  day  then  he  ought  not  to  receive  any  ablution, 
but  to  put  it  in  the  sacrarium,  or  in  a  clean  vessel  until  the  end 

1  Maskell,  The  Ancient  Liturgy  of  the  Church  of  England,  pp.  184-196. 


160  THE  ABLUTIONS  IN  BRITAIN  [ch. 

of  the  second  mass,  and  then  let  him  consume  each  ablution. 
And  so  the  said  infusion  of  wine  being  consumed  let  the  priest 
say  this  prayer,  Quod  ore.  Then  the  fingers  with  which  the 
sacrament  is  handled  ought  to  be  besprinkled  by  the  subdeacon 
in  the  bowl  of  the  chalice,  with  wine,  which  is  consumed  by 
the  priest  himself.  And  this  being  drunk  the  prayer,  Haec 
nos  communio,  follows.  And  afterwards  let  the  priest  lean  the 
chalice  over  on  the  paten  and  bow  in  the  middle  of  the  altar  and 
say  with  devotion  this  prayer  looking  at  the  cross,  A  dor  emus 
cruets.  Then  let  the  priest  go  to  the  sacrarium,  or  to  the  right 
corner  of  the  altar,  and  wash  his  hands,  an  acolyte  ministering 
to  him.  And  meanwhile  let  the  deacon  fold  the  corporals  and 
put  them  back  in  the  case.  And  let  the  subdeacon  carry  the 
book  to  the  right  corner  of  the  altar.  And  when  the  priest 
returns  to  the  right  corner  of  the  altar  after  the  washing  of  his 
hands  let  the  deacon  take  the  chalice  which  lies  on  the  paten, 
and  if  any  of  the  infusion  remain  in  it,  let  him  hold  it  to  the 
mouth  of  the  priest  for  him  to  consume.  Then  let  him  place 
the  corporals  on  it  with  the  chalice  veil,  and  commit  it  to  the 
acolyte  until  the  Post  Communion  is  said,  and  when  Per  omnia 
saecula  saeculorum  is  said  after  the  prayer  let  him  carry  it  away 
with  the  same  solemnity  with  which  he  brought  it  in.  When  he 
has  washed  his  hands  let  the  priest  return  to  the  right  corner 
of  the  altar,  and  say  the  Communion  with  his  ministers1. 

We  notice  that  here  again  there  are  only  two  ablutions, 
but  it  is  the  third  and  not  the  second  as  in  the  Oswestry 
missal  which  is  omitted.  Wine  is  prescribed  on  both 
occasions.  The  order  to  turn  the  chalice  over  on  the  paten 
is  almost  verbally  identical  with  that  in  the  early  four- 
teenth century  Bologna  manuscript.  The  direction  to  look 
at  the  cross  is  repeated  as  in  the  Oswestry  book.  It  is 
the  second  reference  to  the  deacon  folding  the  corporals 
while  the  priest  washes  his  hands  which  is  here  omitted. 

In  another  fifteenth  century  Bodleian  manuscript  (Laud. 
Misc.  164)  we  have  another  version  of  the  directions  of  the 

1  f.  123.   Cf.  Legg,  Tracts  on  the  Mass,  p.  267. 


ix]  THE  ABLUTIONS  IN  BRITAIN  161 

Customary  akin  to  that  of  the  last  named  missal,  but  the 
influence  of  the  rubrics  of  the  Oswestry  book  is  also  appar- 
ent. There  are  three  ablutions  and  an  attempt  has  been 
made  to  combine  the  two  conflicting  types  of  Sarum 
rubric,  and  to  put  back  Gratias  tibi  so  as  to  follow  the 
third  ablution;  for  where  it  is  found  in  the  preceding 
manuscript  immediately  after  the  consumption  of  the 
elements  the  priest  is  directed  to  say  this  "prayer," 
though  no  prayer  is  given.  There  is  only  one  reference  to 
looking  at  the  cross  when  he  says  Adoremus  cruris.  We 
read: 

Then  let  him  consume  the  blood,  and  having  consumed  it 
and  put  down  the  chalice  on  the  right  corner  of  the  altar  let 
him  say  this  prayer.  Then  let  the  priest  go  to  the  right  corner 
of  the  altar  and  take  the  chalice  between  his  hands,  his  fingers 
still  joined  as  before.  And  this  being  done  let  the  deacon  pour 
wine  into  the  chalice.  And  this  being  drunk  let  him  say  Quod 
ore.  Then  let  him  wash  his  fingers  in  the  bowl  of  the  chalice 
with  wine  poured  by  the  subdeacon.  And  this  being  drunk  let 
him  say  Haec  nos  communio.  Then  let  the  subdeacon  pour 
water  into  the  chalice,  and  this  being  drunk  let  the  priest  go 
to  the  middle  of  the  altar  and  bow  and  say  with  great  venera- 
tion, looking  at  the  cross,  Adoremus  cruets.  Let  Gratias  tibi 
follow.  Then  let  the  priest  go  to  the  sacrarium,  and  there  wash 
his  hands  in  the  sacrarium,  and  having  washed  and  wiped  them 
let  him  return  to  the  right  corner  of  the  altar  and  say  the  Post 
Communion;  and  this  being  said  let  him  say  He  missa  est 
towards  the  people1. 

We  notice  that  it  is  the  deacon  who  pours  the  first 
ablution,  though  the  subdeacon  still  pours  the  other  two, 
and  that  the  third  ablution  is  of  water. 

In  the  missal  presented  to  Westminster  Abbey  by 
Abbot  Lytlyngton  (1362-86)  we  read: 

Prayer  of  the  priest  at  receiving  before  taking  (the  ablutions), 
Corpus  et  sanguis.    When  the  minister  pours  wine  into  the 

1  Cf.  Legg,  p.  266. 
l.e.  11 


162  THE  ABLUTIONS  IN  BRITAIN  [ch. 

chalice  for  the  ablutions  let  the  priest  say  Domine  Jesu.  At 
the  washing  of  the  hands  Corpus  Domini.  Another  prayer  after 
the  washing,  Quod  ore1. 

Apparently  there  is  only  one  ablution,  which  is  of  wine. 

In  a  late  fourteenth  century  manuscript  missal  which  be- 
longed to  the  church  of  Sherborne,  and  is  now  at  Alnwick 
Castle,  we  read: 

After  the  reception  of  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord,  and 
after  the  first  infusion  say  Quod  ore,  after  the  washing  of  the 
fingers  within  the  chalice  Haec  nos  communio.  Bowing  let 
him  say  Gr alias  tibi.  Mass  being  finished  let  the  priest  bow 
before  the  altar  and  say  Placeat  tibi2. 

In  a  manuscript  missal  of  Hereford  use  of  the  fourteenth 
century  in  the  library  of  University  College,  Oxford,  we 
read: 

Then  let  him  sign  himself  with  the  blood.  Then  let  him  go 
with  the  chalice  to  the  right  corner  of  the  altar  and  make  three 
infusions.  While  the  first  is  made  let  him  say  Quod  ore,  while 
the  second  infusion  is  made  over  his  fingers  Haec  nos  Domine, 
while  the  third  infusion  is  made  Tres  sunt.  Then  let  the  chalice 
be  put  on  the  paten.  Then  let  the  priest  bow  before  the  altar, 
and  say  on  this  wise  Corpus  tuum.  Then  let  him  wash  his 
hands  at  the  sacrarium,  and  say  Lavabo  inter  innocentes.  Then 
let  him  go  to  the  altar,  and  having  said  the  collects  with  Ite 
missa  est  let  the  priest  before  the  altar,  with  head  or  body 
bowed  and  hands  joined,  say  this  prayer,  Placeat  tibi3. 

We  notice  a  resemblance  to  the  later  directions  of  the 
Bologna  Sarum  missal.  As  at  Sherborne  nothing  is  said 
whether  the  ablutions  are  with  wine  or  water,  but  in 
addition  to  the  washing  of  the  hands  at  the  sacrarium 
there  are  plainly  three  pourings  into  the  chalice,  Tres  sunt 
(i  John  v.  7)  supplying  a  mystical  interpretation. 

1  Legg,  Missale  Westmonast.  vol.  n.  col.  520-1. 

2  Legg,  Liturgical  Notes  on  the  Sherborne  Missal,  pp.  8,  9.  Cf.  Simmons, 
Lay  Folks  Mass  Book,  p.  306. 

3  Henderson,  Hereford  Missal,  pp.  134-5. 


ix]  THE  ABLUTIONS  IN  BRITAIN  163 

In  a  fourteenth  century  manuscript  missal  of  the  use 
of  York  now  in  the  Minster  Library  we  have  only  two 
prayers,  Quod  ore  and  Haec  nos  communio,  followed  by 
Placeat  tibi1,  so  that  probably  only  two  ablutions  are 
intended,  but  there  are  no  rubrics. 

In  another  copy  of  about  the  same  date  now  at  Uni- 
versity College,  Oxford,  we  read : 

Quod  ore,  Haec  nos  communio,  Tres  sunt.  After  mass  let  him 
bow.  Placeat  tibi2. 

Here  there  are  probably  three  ablutions  corresponding 
to  the  number  of  the  prayers,  the  third  again  providing 
the  mystical  meaning. 

In  a  manuscript  breviary  of  the  use  of  York  of  the  four- 
teenth century,  now  in  the  Minster  Library,  we  find  also 
the  canon  of  the  mass,  etc.,  and  as  given  here  the  rubrics 
are  somewhat  more  elaborate.   We  read : 

When  first  the  wine  is  poured  into  the  chalice  after  the 
reception  this  prayer  is  said,  Quod  ore.  Secondly  after  the 
infusion  of  the  water  into  the  chalice  let  the  priest  say  Haec 
nos  communio,  Tres  sunt.  Then  let  him  bow  his  body  in  the 
middle  of  the  altar  and  say  as  he  goes  to  the  lavatory  this 
prayer,  Gratias  tibi.  After  the  completion  of  mass  let  the  priest, 
with  body  bowed  and  hands  joined  before  the  altar,  say  this 
prayer,  Placeat  tibi  3. 

We  note  that  the  first  of  the  ablutions  in  the  chalice  is 
of  wine  and  the  second  of  water.  If  a  third  is  intended  by 
the  prayer,  Tres  sunt,  this  also  would  probably  be  of  water. 

In  another  manuscript  York  missal  of  the  fifteenth  cen- 
tury (c.  1470),  written  for  use  in  the  cathedral  itself,  as  is 
plain  from  a  number  of  points,  and  now  at  Sidney  Sussex 
College,  Cambridge,  we  find  a  version  of  the  rubrics  of  the 
Sarum  Customary.   We  read: 

Then  let  him  consume  the  blood,  and  having  consumed  it 

1  Henderson,  York  Missal,  vol.  I.  pp.  203-5. 

2  Henderson,  vol.  1.  pp.  203-5.  3  Henderson,  vol.  1.  pp.  203-5. 

11 — 2 


164  THE  ABLUTIONS  IN  BRITAIN  [ch. 

let  the  priest  go  to  the  right  corner  of  the  altar  with  the  chalice 
between  his  hands,  his  fingers  still  joined  as  before,  and  let 
the  thurifer  approach  and  deliver  to  the  subdeacon  a  phial  with 
wine  that  he  may  pour  into  the  chalice,  and  let  the  priest 
rinse  his  hands  lest  any  remnants  of  the  body  and  blood  remain 
on  his  fingers,  or  in  the  chalice.  But  when  any  priest  has  to 
celebrate  twice  in  one  day  then  at  the  first  mass  he  ought  not 
to  receive  any  ablution,  but  to  put  it  in  the  sacrarium  in  a 
clean  vessel  until  the  end  of  the  second  mass,  and  then  let 
each  ablution  be  consumed.  And  after  the  first  ablution  let  a 
prayer  follow  in  this  wise,  Quod  ore.  Then  let  him  wash  his 
fingers  in  the  bowl  of  the  chalice  with  wine  poured  by  the 
subdeacon.  And  this  being  drunk  let  the  prayer,  Haec  nos 
communio,  follow.  Then  likewise  let  the  subdeacon  pour  wine 
into  the  chalice,  and  this  being  drunk  let  the  priest  go  to  the 
middle  of  the  altar  and  replace  the  chalice  upon  the  paten,  and 
bow  and  say  Gratias  tibi.  And  with  this  prayer  let  the  priest 
go  to  the  right  corner  of  the  altar  that  the  thurifer  may  give  the 
priest  water  at  the  sacrarium,  the  candlebearer  holding  the  bowls . 
And  while  these  things  are  being  done  let  the  deacon  fold  the 
corporals,  and  afterwards  carry  the  book  to  the  right  corner  of 
the  altar.  Then  let  the  deacon  take  the  chalice  which  lies  on  the 
paten,  and  if  any  of  the  infusion  remain  in  it  let  him  hold  it 
to  the  mouth  of  the  priest  for  him  to  consume  when  he  comes 
from  the  right  corner  of  the  altar.  And  afterwards  let  him 
cover  the  chalice  on  the  north  part  of  the  altar,  and  put  on  it 
the  corporals,  and  deliver  it  to  the  subdeacon,  or  acolyte,  as 
is  noted  above  in  the  rubric  before  the  preface.  After  the 
reception  of  the  sacrament,  and  the  ablution  of  his  hands,  let 
the  priest  turn  towards  the  people  at  the  right  corner  of  the 
altar,  and  say  the  Communion,  and  the  rest.  Mass  being  finished, 
let  the  priest,  with  body  bowed  and  hands  joined,  silently  before 
the  middle  of  the  altar  say  this  prayer,  Placeat  tibi1. 

We  notice  that  here  there  are  plainly  three  ablutions 
in  the  chalice  each  of  wine  in  addition  to  the  washing  of  the 

1  Henderson,  vol.  I.  pp.  202-4. 


ix]  THE  ABLUTIONS  IN  BRITAIN  165 

priest's  hands  at  the  sacrarium.  The  word  "likewise"  in 
the  case  of  the  third  shows  that  the  practice  of  using 
water  for  the  last  ablution  was  known  and  disallowed. 
Among  the  modifications  of  the  Sarum  order  we  note  the 
addition  of  the  words  "Let  the  thurifer  approach  and 
deliver  to  the  subdeacon  a  phial  with  wine,"  the  directions 
to  "replace  the  chalice  upon  the  paten"  before  saying 
Gratias  tibi,  and  "that  the  thurifer  may  give  the  priest 
water  at  the  sacrarium,  the  candlebearer  holding  the 
bowls,"  and  the  statement  that  the  chalice  is  to  be 
covered  "on  the  north  part  of  the  altar."  Also  it  is  when 
the  priest  comes  "from  the  right  corner  of  the  altar,"  not 
when  he  goes  to  it,  as  in  the  Customary  and  other  books, 
that  the  drainings  of  the  chalice  are  to  be  consumed. 
The  reference  to  the  bowls  suggests  the  Roman  Ordines. 

Certain  notes  of  the  canonist  Lyndwood  in  his  Pro- 
vinciate, begun  in  1422,  are  interesting  as  illustrating 
English  custom  with  regard  to  the  ablutions,  and  the 
liquid  used.   We  read: 

Digitis  super fusum.  From  these  words  it  can  be  gathered 
that  the  first  ablution  ought  to  be  in  the  chalice,  and  the  second 
over  the  fingers  also  in  the  chalice,  and  each  of  wine.  Therefore 
they  err  who  first  pour  over  their  fingers,  and  they  also  who 
use  water  at  the  second  pouring1. 

Ablutos.  By  the  pouring  over  of  wine  into  the  chalice,  or  by 
the  ablution  made  at  the  lavatory.  But  today  according  to  the 
usual  custom  this  is  not  observed,  except  that  a  towel  is  kept 
near  the  lavatory2. 

Apparently  Lyndwood  knows  nothing  of  a  third  ablu- 
tion. Though  he  prefers  that  the  ablutions  of  the  chalice 
and  of  the  priest's  fingers  should  both  be  with  wine,  he  is 
witness  to  the  prevalence  of  a  contrary  custom,  by  which 
water  was  used  at  the  second  ablution,  as  we  noticed  in 

1  Lib.  in.  Tit.  23,  De  celeb,  miss.  Constitutio,  Stephanus,  Ed.  Oxford, 
1679,  p.  227. 

3  Constitutio,  Edmundus,  p.  235. 


166  THE  ABLUTIONS  IN  BRITAIN  [ch. 

the  Oswestry  missal  {c.  1400)  (as  an  alternative),  in  the 
rubrics  of  the  York  breviary  text  of  the  fourteenth  cen- 
tury, and  in  the  Constitutions  of  Archbishop  Langton  as 
early  as  the  thirteenth,  where  indeed  water  is  allowed 
apparently  even  for  the  first  ablution.  It  is  only  for  the 
third  ablution  that  water  is  prescribed  in  the  Corpus 
Christi  College,  Oxford,  text  of  the  Sarum  Customary  and 
texts  dependent  on  it,  and  this  Lyndwood  does  not 
mention.  He  tells  us  that  in  most  places  the  hand-washing 
at  the  sacrarium  after  the  ablutions  in  the  chalice  was 
obsolete,  though  a  vestige  remained  in  the  provision  of  a 
towel,  but  the  rubric  derived  ultimately  from  the  Con- 
suetudinary is  repeated  in  all  missals  at  a  much  later  date, 
showing  it  would  seem  that  the  existence  of  rubrics  is  not 
necessarily  evidence  that  in  practice  they  are  obeyed. 

In  the  manuscript  missal  written  by  James  Sibbald 
(f  1507),  Vicar  of  Arbuthnott  in  the  diocese  of  St  Andrews, 
really  a  book  of  Sarum  use,  we  find  another  version  of  the 
directions  derived  from  the  Customary  according  to  the 
original  text  in  which  Gratias  tibi  is  said  at  the  end  of  the 
ablutions  and  not  after  the  consumption  of  the  elements. 
It  agrees  generally  with  the  Corpus  Christi  College, 
Oxford,  manuscript,  water  being  ordered  for  the  third 
ablution,  but  the  section  derived  from  the  Consuetudinary, 
"  After  the  reception. .  .he  brought  it  in,"  is  omitted  at  the 
end.  We  notice  also  that  as  in  the  York  missal  with  the 
Sarum  rubrics,  now  at  Sidney  Sussex  College,  Cambridge, 
it  is  when  the  priest  comes  "from  the  right  corner  of  the 
altar,"  not  when  he  goes  to  it,  that  the  last  drainings  of 
the  ablutions  are  to  be  consumed1. 

The  rubrics  of  the  York  printed  missal  of  which  five 
editions  are  known  to  have  existed,  1509  (?),  1516,  1517, 
1530  and  1533  are  in  marked  contrast  as  regards  length 
with  those  of  the  Sidney  Sussex  manuscript,  yet  they 
are  plainly  derived  from  them  by  a  process  of  curtailment, 
1  Forbes,  Missale  de  Arbuthnott,  p.  163. 


ix]  THE  ABLUTIONS  IN  BRITAIN  167 

much  of  the  characteristic  phraseology,  here  and  elsewhere, 
being  retained.   We  read  after  Corpus  et  sanguis : 

After  the  first  ablution  let  this  prayer  be  said  Quod  ore.  Then 
let  him  take  the  chalice  and  put  it  upon  the  paten  and  after- 
wards bowing  let  him  say  Haec  nos  communio.  Then  let  the 
priest,  with  body  bowed  and  hands  joined,  silently  in  the 
midst  of  the  altar  say  this  prayer,  Placeat  tibi1. 

The  directions  are  obviously  incomplete  for  only  one 
ablution  is  actually  mentioned,  but  as  this  is  called  the 
first  and  two  prayers  are  provided,  probably  two  are 
intended — of  the  chalice  and  of  the  priest's  fingers.  The 
rubrics  of  a  missal,  Sarum  in  many  points  though  drawn 
up  for  the  use  of  York  Minster,  are  adapted  not  very 
skilfully  to  the  requirements  of  an  ordinary  parish  church 
with  few  assistant  ministers  and  simple  ceremonial. 

The  rubrics  of  the  Hereford  printed  missal  as  published 
in  1502,  are  longer  and  somewhat  more  elaborate.  We  read : 

After  he  has  communicated  let  him  go  to  the  right  corner 
of  the  altar  with  the  chalice  and  wash  it  with  wine  saying 
Quod  ore.  Then  let  him  wash  his  fingers  over  the  chalice  with 
wine  or  water  saying  Haec  nos  Domine.  Then  let  him  wash  it 
with  water  and  return  to  the  middle  of  the  altar  with  that 
ablution,  and  there  consume  it,  and  let  him  say  again  Corpus 
tuum.  Then  let  him  put  the  chalice  so  as  to  lie  on  the  paten, 
and  bow  to  the  altar  and  go  to  the  sacrarium  and  wash  his 
hands,  and  as  he  goes  let  him  say  Lavabo  inter  innocentes. 
Then  let  him  return  to  the  altar  and  say  the  Communion.  This 
being  said  let  him  sign  himself  and  turn  to  the  people  and  say, 
Dominus  vobiscum.  And  let  him  say  the  Post  Communion.  And 
at  the  end  of  the  prayer  let  him  join  his  hands  and  go  to  the 
middle  of  the  altar  saying  Per  Dominum.... Then  with  hands 
joined  let  him  bow  to  the  altar  saying  Placeat  tibi2. 

We  notice  that  there  are  three  ablutions,  that  the  second 
may  be  of  wine  or  water,  and  the  third  of  water.  The 

1  Henderson,  York  Missal,  vol.  I.  pp.  202-4. 

2  Henderson,  Herefore  Missal,  pp.  134-5. 


168  THE  ABLUTIONS  IN  BRITAIN  [ch. 

rubrics  show  considerable  expansion  and  modification  of 
the  manuscript  missal,  and  a  comparison  seems  to  show 
the  influence  of  the  Sarum  rubrics,  though  there  is  much 
curtailment ;  and  the  use  of  water  is  here  authorised,  not 
condemned  as  by  Lyndwood. 

In  the  various  editions  of  the  printed  Sarum  missal 
which  appeared  between  1487  and  1557  there  is  little 
change  in  the  rubrics,  which  are  a  modification  of  the 
version  of  the  rubrics  of  the  Customary  found  in  the 
Bodleian  manuscript,  Rawl.  Liturg.  C  2.  With  respect  to 
the  ablutions  we  read : 

Then  let  him  consume  the  blood,  and  having  consumed  it 
let  the  priest  bow  and  say  with  devotion  the  following  prayer, 
Gratias  tibi.  And  having  said  this  let  the  priest  go  to  the  right 
corner  of  the  altar  with  the  chalice  between  his  hands,  his 
fingers  still  joined  as  before,  and  let  the  subdeacon  approach 
and  pour  into  the  chalice  wine  and  water,  and  let  the  priest 
rinse  his  hands  lest  any  remnants  of  the  body  or  blood  remain 
on  his  fingers,  or  in  the  chalice.  But  when  any  priest  has  to 
celebrate  twice  in  one  day  then  at  the  first  mass  he  ought  not 
to  receive  any  ablution,  but  to  put  it  in  the  sacrarium  or  in  a 
clean  vessel  until  the  end  of  the  second  mass ;  and  then  let  each 
ablution  be  consumed.  After  the  first  ablution  this  prayer, 
Quod  ore,  is  said.  Then  let  him  wash  his  fingers  in  the  bowl 
of  the  chalice  with  wine  poured  by  the  subdeacon.  And  this 
being  drunk  let  the  prayer,  Haec  nos  communio,  follow.  After 
the  reception  of  the  ablution  let  the  priest  put  the  chalice  on 
the  paten  so  that  if  anything  remain  it  may  drain.  And  after- 
wards bowing  let  him  say  Adoremus  cruets.  Then  let  him  wash 
his  hands.  Meanwhile  let  the  deacon  fold  the  corporals.  When 
he  has  washed  his  hands  and  the  priest  returns  to  the  right 
corner  of  the  altar  let  the  deacon  hold  the  chalice  to  the  mouth 
of  the  priest  for  him  to  consume,  if  anything  of  the  infusion 
remain  in  it.  And  afterwards  let  him  say  the  Communion  with 
his  ministers1. 

1   Dickinson,  Missale  Sarum,  col.  626-8. 


ix]  THE  ABLUTIONS  IN  BRITAIN  169 

The  final  text  of  the  rubrics  of  the  Sarum  missal  with 
regard  to  the  ablutions  thus  agrees  with  the  earliest 
known,  that  of  the  Crawford  manuscript,  in  placing 
Gratias  tibi  immediately  after  the  communion  and  before 
the  ablutions.  Apparently  as  in  the  Bodleian  manuscript, 
Rawl.  Liturg.  C  2,  there  are  only  two  ablutions,  and 
though  we  are  told  that  the  subdeacon  will  pour  wine  and 
water  into  the  chalice  the  second  ablution  is  to  be  of  wine, 
and  all  reference  to  the  third  which  was  frequently  of 
water  has  vanished. 

The  rubrics  for  the  ablutions  of  the  Sarum  Customary 
reappear  in  the  Manual  of  1554,  and  it  is  the  text  of  the 
Corpus  Christi  College,  Oxford,  manuscript  which  is 
followed.  Three  ablutions  are  prescribed  and  water  for  the 
third.  We  notice  that  it  is  the  deacon  not  the  subdeacon, 
as  is  usual,  who  ministers  both  the  wine,  as  in  the  Bodleian 
manuscript,  Laud.  Misc.  164,  and  also  the  water,  while  the 
subdeacon,  not  the  acolyte,  as  in  the  Bodleian  manuscript, 
Rawl.  Liturg.  C  2,  ministers  the  water  when  he  washes 
his  hands  at  the  sacrarium.  The  words  "after  the  first 
ablution,  "  which  properly  indicate  when  Quod  ore  is  to  be 
said,  have  been  joined  to  the  previous  sentence  so  that 
when  a  priest  duplicates  we  are  told  that  each  ablution 
should  be  consumed  "after  the  first  ablution."  After  the 
third  ablution  the  priest  is  directed  to  "turn  the  chalice 
over  upon  the  paten,"  as  in  the  Bodleian  manuscript,  Rawl. 
Liturg.  C  2,  and  in  the  earlier  Bologna  manuscript,  and  as 
suggested  in  the  printed  missals  at  this  point1. 

Our  investigation  has  shown  that  the  history  of  the 
ablutions  in  England  and  Britain  generally  was  much  the 
same  as  elsewhere.  In  the  earliest  days  the  rules  of  the 
Admonition  of  the  pseudo  Leo  with  regard  to  the  washing 
of  the  vessels  and  the  priest's  hands  were  observed,  as  we 
see  in  Cotton  MS.  Tiberius  C.  I  of  the  eleventh  century,  now 
in  the  British  Museum.  The  washing  of  the  priest's  fingers 

1  Dickinson,  col.  626-8. 


170  THE  ABLUTIONS  IN  BRITAIN        [ch.ix 

was  the  earliest  form  of  ablution  to  be  moved  so  as  to 
take  place  during  the  service,  exactly  as  on  the  continent, 
and  it  is  found  in  the  Consuetudinaries  of  different  cathe- 
drals, the  oldest  of  which,  that  of  Salisbury,  dates  from 
the  beginning  of  the  thirteenth  century,  and  is  the  basis 
of  the  rest.  About  the  same  time  we  find  various  councils 
laying  down  rules  for  the  ablutions,  as  for  a  practice  which, 
though  now  well  established,  was  still  uncertain  in  detail, 
and  particularly  with  reference  to  what  is  to  be  done 
when  a  priest  duplicates.  There  is  to  be  a  rinsing  both  of 
the  chalice  and  of  the  priest's  fingers.  The  influence  of 
Rouen  on  English  ceremonial  as  seen  in  the  Lay  Folks 
Mass  Book  and  elsewhere  suggests  that  the  customs  of 
that  church  were  imitated  in  this  as  in  other  matters.  By 
the  end  of  the  thirteenth  century  directions  for  the  ablu- 
tions are  included  in  the  service  books,  and  we  find  them 
in  the  pontifical  of  Anianus  of  Bangor.  In  the  Sarum 
Customary  of  the  first  half  of  the  fourteenth  century, 
which  is  an  elaboration  of  the  older  Consuetudinary,  we 
find  a  big  development,  and  the  complicated  directions 
contained  in  it  became  the  norm  of  later  days,  and  appear 
with  various  modifications  not  only  in  all  the  later  Salis- 
bury missals,  where  the  cross  influences  are  extremely 
complicated,  but  also  at  York,  Hereford,  and  St  Andrews. 


CHAPTER  X 

THE  ORDER  OF  COMMUNION  AND 
THE  FIRST  PRAYER  BOOK 

THE  first  change  in  the  traditional  method  of  giving 
communion  in  England  is  to  be  found  in  the  Order 
of  Communion  published  in  1548,  a  form  of  prayer  in 
English  by  which  the  holy  sacrament  in  both  kinds  was 
to  be  given  to  the  people,  to  be  interpolated  in  the  Latin 
mass.  The  preliminary  rubric  runs : 

The  time  of  the  communion  shall  be  immediately  after  that 
the  priest  himself  hath  received  the  sacrament,  without  the 
varying  of  any  other  rite  or  ceremony  in  the  mass  (until  other 
order  shall  be  provided),  but  as  heretofore  usually  the  priest 
hath  done  with  the  sacrament  of  the  body,  to  prepare,  bless, 
and  consecrate  so  much  as  will  serve  the  people,  so  it  shall 
continue  still  after  the  same  manner  and  form,  save  that  he 
shall  bless  and  consecrate  the  biggest  chalice,  or  some  fair 
and  convenient  cup  or  cups  full  of  wine  with  some  water  put 
into  it,  and  that  day  not  drink  it  up  all  himself,  but  taking 
one  only  sup,  or  draught,  leave  the  rest  upon  the  altar  covered, 
and  turn  to  them  that  are  disposed  to  be  partakers  of  the 
communion,  and  shall  thus  exhort  them  as  followeth. 

After  the  confession  and  absolution  and  We  do  not  pre- 
sume, we  read: 

Then  shall  the  priest  rise,  the  people  still  reverently  kneeling, 
and  the  priest  shall  deliver  the  communion,  first  to  the  ministers 
if  any  be  there  present  that  they  may  be  ready  to  help  the 
priest,  and  after  to  the  other.  And  when  he  doth  deliver  the 
sacrament  of  the  body  of  Christ  he  shall  say  to  everyone  these 
words  following, 

The  body  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  which  was  given  for  thee, 
preserve  thy  body  unto  everlasting  life. 


172  THE  ORDER  OF  COMMUNION  [ch. 

And  the  priest  delivering  the  sacrament  of  the  blood,  and 
giving  everyone  to  drink  once  and  no  more,  shall  say, 

The  blood  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  which  was  shed  for  thee, 
preserve  thy  soul  to  everlasting  life. 

If  there  be  a  deacon  or  other  priest  then  shall  he  follow  with 
the  chalice,  and  as  the  priest  ministereth  the  bread  so  shall 
he  for  more  expedition  minister  the  wine  in  form  before  written. 
Then  shall  the  priest,  turning  him  to  the  people,  let  the  people 
depart  with  this  blessing, 

The  peace  of  God  which  passeth  all  understanding  keep  your 
hearts  and  minds  in  the  knowledge  and  love  of  God,  and  of  his 
Son  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord. 

To  which  the  people  shall  answer,  Amen. 

The  new  Order  of  Communion  was  not  in  many  ways 
such  a  very  great  innovation.  Numerous  such  orders  for 
use  when  communion  was  given  out  of  mass  are  in  existence, 
and  since  the  twelfth  century  a  form  of  confession  and 
absolution  had  been  frequently  interpolated  in  the  service 
on  the  occasions  when  the  sacrament  was  distributed  in  its 
proper  place  after  the  communion  of  the  priest.  Also  the 
insertion  of  a  confession  and  absolution  in  the  vernacular 
into  the  mass  after  the  sermon  had  been  common  on  the 
continent,  at  any  rate  from  the  eleventh  century,  and  many 
forms  exist1,  so  that  the  absolutely  new  elements  in  the 
Order  of  Communion  were  not  so  very  numerous.  Allowing 
for  other  influences  we  note  that  the  words  used  at  the 
actual  delivery  of  the  sacrament  are  very  similar  to  what 
we  find  in  the  order  for  the  visitation  of  the  sick  in  the 
lost  St  Remi  codex  of  the  Gregorian  Sacramentary  (c.  800) . 
After  preparatory  devotions  we  read: 

Then  let  him  communicate  the  sick  man  saying, 
The  body  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  preserve  thee  unto 
everlasting  life. 

1  Mulhenhoff  and    Sherer,    Denkmaler  deutscher   Poesie   und   Prosa, 
p.  200  ff. 


x]  AND  THE  FIRST  PRAYER  BOOK  173 

The  blood  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  redeem  thee  unto  ever- 
lasting life. 

The  peace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  the  communion  of 
the  saints  be  with  thee  and  with  us  unto  everlasting  life,  Amen. 

Prayer  in  consummation1. 

The  Pax  at  the  giving  of  the  sacrament  privately  came 
usually  before  communion  as  at  mass,  and  was  indeed  a 
duplication  of  the  Pax  given  in  church,  but  the  practice  of 
giving  it  after  the  words  of  adminstration,  if  not  after  the 
actual  reception,  seems  to  have  been  not  uncommon,  and 
survives  in  various  orders  of  communion.  In  the  Codex 
Tilianus  of  the  Gregorian  Sacramentary  and  in  a  twelfth 
century  pontifical  of  Salzburg,  which  retains  the  Gregorian 
rubrics,  in  the  service  for  the  communion  of  the  sick  we  read : 

A  prayer  at  (before,  Salz.)  the  reception  of  the  eucharist, 

The  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  preserve  thy 
soul  unto  everlasting  life.  Amen. 

(And  then,  Salz.) 

The  peace  and  communion  of  the  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  preserve  thy  soul  unto  everlasting  life. 

After  the  consumption  of  the  eucharist, 

0  Lord  Jesu  Christ...2. 

In  a  tenth  or  eleventh  century  German  form  only  the 
Pax  in  its  modified  form  has  survived.  After  the  unction 
and  collects  we  read : 

Here  let  him  be  communicated, 

The  peace  and  communion  of  the  body  and  blood  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  preserve  thy  soul  unto  everlasting  life.  Amen3. 

The  English  Order  of  Communion  according  to  the  rubric 
was  to  be  inserted  in  the  order  of  the  mass  immediately 
after  the  priest's  communion,  and  therefore  before  the 

1  Menard,  Gregorian  Sacramentary,  pp.  550-1.  P.L.  lxxviii.  col.  537. 
Cf.  Freestone,  The  Sacrament  Reserved,  p.  243. 

2  Menard,  p.  542.  P.L.  lxxviii.  col.  528.  Martene,  vol.  1.  lib.  vn. 
Art.  iv.    Ordo  XV.  p.  325. 

3  Gerbert,  Mon.  Vet.  Lit.  Alem.  vol.  11.  p.  33. 


174  THE  ORDER  OF  COMMUNION  [ch. 

prayer  Gratias  tibi  according  to  the  printed  Sarum  missal. 
When  there  were  communicants  the  order  of  the  Crawford 
missal  would  probably  be  that  adopted,  and  in  this  we 
read  before  Gratias  tibi,  "Then  let  the  body  and  the  blood 
be  consumed,"  so  that  after  the  Order  of  Communion  the 
consumption  of  the  remains  would  precede  Gratias  tibi, 
the  remains  ordinarily  being  the  contents  of  the  chalice  with 
the  particle,  and  sometimes  reserved  hosts  from  the  pyx. 
The  prayer,  Gratias  tibi,  begins : 

I  give  thee  thanks,  O  Lord,  holy  Father,  almighty  ever- 
lasting God,  who  hast  refreshed  me  with  the  most  sacred  body 
and  blood  of  thy  Son  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  I  pray  thee 
that  this  sacrament...1. 

A  longer  version  of  this  prayer,  Gratias  tibi,  to  be  said 
by  the  priest  after  mass  is  also  found  in  the  printed  Sarum 
missal.  This  begins : 

I  give  thee  thanks,  O  Lord  God,  almighty  Father,  who  hast 
vouchsafed  to  satisfy  me  with  the  body  and  blood  of  thy  dear 
Son  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  I  beseech  thy  great  clemency, 
almighty  and  merciful  Lord,  that  this  holy  communion...2. 

In  the  Bobbio  and  Stowe  missals  and  in  the  ninth 
century  Irish  fragment,  St  Gall  MS.  1394,  practically  the 
same  form  is  found  as  the  last  prayer  at  mass3,  and  the 
text  is  now  seen  to  be  derived  from  certain  Post  Com- 
munion collects  of  the  Leonine  Sacramentary4.  We  note 
the  beginning: 

We  give  thee  thanks,  O  Lord,  holy  Father,  almighty  ever- 
lasting God,  who  hast  satisfied  us  with  the  communion  of  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ  thy  Son,  and  we  humbly  beseech  thy 
mercy,  O  Lord,  that  this  thy  sacrament... 

1  Dickinson,  Sarum  Missal,  col.  626-7. 

2  Dickinson,  col.  639. 

*  Neale  and   Forbes,   Ancient  Gallican  Liturgies,   p.   209.     Warren, 
Liturgy  of  the  Celtic  Church,  pp.  243-4,  179. 

*  Feltoe,  pp.  71,  in. 


x]  AND  THE  FIRST  PRAYER  BOOK  175 

In  the  Bobbio  missal  the  prayer,  Gratias  tibi,  which  is  so 
widespread  in  different  versions  is  headed  "The  con- 
summation of  mass,"  so  that  by  the  combination  of  the 
Order  of  Communion  with  the  Sarum  mass  we  have  an 
almost  exact  reproduction  of  the  sequence  of  the  St  Remi 
order  of  clinical  communion. 

The  communion  Pax  according  to  the  new  English 
Order,  in  which  the  original  Pax  of  the  mass  also  survives, 
is  the  concluding  act  in  the  distribution  of  the  sacrament 
and  the  ratification  of  the  communion  of  the  recipients 
with  one  another  "in  the  knowledge  and  love  of  God, 
and  of  his  Son  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord,"  which  is  effected 
in  that  holy  action.  It  is  a  development  of  the  idea  of  peace 
and  communion  (pax  et  communicatio)  found  in  the 
forms  quoted  above,  and  in  the  Ambrosian  missal,  and 
with  an  addition  in  the  Stowe  missal  and  St  Gall  MS. 
1394 l.  As  part  of  the  act  of  communion  the  Pax,  though 
following  the  reception  of  the  sacrament,  naturally  pre- 
cedes the  consumption  of  the  remains,  and  in  the  Order  of 
Communion  it  marks  the  dismissal  of  the  communicants 
from  the  altar,  not  the  end  of  the  mass  which  has  still  to 
be  completed.  The  sequence  would  thus  be,  the  com- 
munion of  the  people  in  both  kinds,  the  communion  Pax 
in  English  at  the  dismissal  of  the  communicants,  the  con- 
sumption of  the  remains,  the  thanksgiving,  Gratias  tibi,  and 
then  the  ablutions,  after  which  the  mass  was  concluded. 

In  1549  was  published  the  first  English  Prayer  Book. 
The  order  of  communion  is  now  no  longer  a  separate  thing 
from  the  usual  order  of  mass,  but  the  two  are  joined 
inseparably.  The  dismissal  of  the  communicants  and  the 
dismissal  of  the  rest  of  the  congregation  are  united,  and 
the  blessing  which  had  commonly  been  given  at  the  end 
of  mass  is  added  to  the  new  communion  Pax.  The  idea  of 
thanksgiving  after  communion,  not  always  included  in  the 
old  Latin  Post  Communion  collects,  has  now  become  a 

1  Warren,  pp.  242,  177. 


176  THE  ORDER  OF  COMMUNION  [ch. 

regular  feature  of  the  service,  and  unlike  Gratias  tibi,  the 
form  is  said  publicly  and  before  the  new  Pax.  Yet  its 
connection  with  the  old  thanksgiving  is  obvious,  for  it 
begins : 

Almighty  and  everliving  God,  we  most  heartily  thank  thee, 
for  that  thou  hast  vouchsafed  to  feed  us  in  these  holy  mysteries 
with  the  spiritual  food  of  the  most  precious  body  and  blood 
of  thy  Son  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ.... And  we  most  humbly 
beseech  thee,  O  heavenly  Father.... 

The  thanksgivings  after  communion  in  Hermann's  Con- 
sultation begin  similarly,  and  may  have  suggested  the 
provision  of  the  English  form,  but  verbally  this  agrees 
rather  more  closely  with  the  old  English  prayers1. 

The  order  of  the  latter  part  of  the  service  is  now  some- 
what modified,  and  we  have  the  sequence,  the  communion 
of  the  people,  the  thanksgiving,  the  communion  Pax  and 
blessing  for  the  dismissal  of  the  whole  congregation. 
Nothing  is  said  about  either  the  consumption  of  the  re- 
mains of  the  sacrament  or  the  ablutions.  It  was  quite 
natural,  however,  that  priests  accustomed  to  the  Latin 
service  should  continue  the  'ceremony  of  the  ablutions, 
adapted  of  course  slightly  to  the  new  conditions,  and  now 
that  the  chalice  was  delivered  to  all  communicants  it 
would  generally  be  necessary  to  deal  with  what  was  left 
of  the  consecrated  wine,  as  in  the  earliest  days,  as  well  as 
of  the  consecrated  bread,  so  that  the  performance  of  the 
ablutions,  particularly  when  there  was  more  than  one  cup, 
as  suggested  in  the  Order  of  Communion,  would  no  longer 
be  quite  so  simple  a  ceremony.  That  the  ceremony  of  the 
ablutions  was  continued  to  the  annoyance  of  certain  of 
the  bishops  and  others  who  favoured  the  new  ideas  we 
have  considerable  evidence.  In  a  draft  of  "Articles  to  be 
followed  and  observed  according  to  the  King's  Majesty's 
Injunctions  and  Proceedings,"  compiled  it  would  seem  in 
1549,  we  reacl: 

1  Hermann,  f.  96  b. 


x]  AND  THE  FIRST  PRAYER  BOOK  177 

For  an  uniformity  that  no  minister  do  counterfeit  the  popish 
mass  as  to  kiss  the  Lord's  table,  washing  his  fingers  every  time 
in  the  communion... laying  down  and  licking  the  chalice  of  the 
communion... or  setting  any  light  upon  the  Lord's  board  at  any 
time,  and  finally  to  use  no  other  ceremonies  than  are  appointed 
in  the  King's  Book  of  Common  Prayers1. 

In  1550  Ridley  put  forth  a  somewhat  expanded  form  of 
these  requirements  in  his  diocese.   We  read: 

That  no  minister  do  counterfeit  the  popish  mass  in  kissing 
the  Lord's  board,  washing  his  hands  or  fingers  after  the  gospel, 
or  the  receipt  of  the  holy  communion,  shifting  the  book  from 
one  place  to  another,  laying  down  and  licking  the  chalice  after 
the  communion... or  setting  any  light  upon  the  Lord's  board, 
and  finally  that  the  minister  in  the  time  of  the  holy  communion 
do  use  only  the  ceremonies  and  gestures  appointed  in  the  Book 
of  Common  Prayer  and  none  other,  so  that  there  do  not  appear 
in  them  any  counterfeiting  of  the  Popish  mass2. 

In  155 1  Hooper  put  forth  the  same  directions  with 
regard  to  the  ablutions,  etc.,  in  his  diocese  of  Gloucester3. 

We  note  that  though  the  Articles  appeal  to  the  In- 
junctions of  1547  they  forbid  what  they  allowed — the 
lights  on  the  altar — because  of  the  silence  of  the  Prayer 
Book. 

Bucer  in  his  Censura  on  the  First  Prayer  Book  presented 
to  the  Bishop  of  Ely  in  155 1  includes  washing  the  chalice 
among  the  numerous  superstitions  still  rife  among  those 
who  used  the  Book.   He  says : 

There  are  some  who  by  whatever  signs  they  can  study  to 
counterfeit  their  never  sufficiently  hated  mass,  both  by 
vestments,  lights  and  bowings,  by  crossings,  by  washing  the 
chalice  and  other  gestures  of  the  missal,  by  breathing  over  the 
bread  and  cup  of  the  eucharist,  by  transferring  the  book  on 
the  table  from  the  right  side  to  the  left,  by  placing  the  table 
in  the  same  place  in  which  the  altar  stood,  by  showing  the 

1  Frere,  Visitation  Articles,  vol.  II.  pp.  19 1-3. 

2  Frere,  vol.  11.  pp.  241-2.  3  Frere,  vol.  11.  p.  276. 

L.  E.  12 


178  THE  ORDER  OF  COMMUNION  [ch. 

bread  and  chalice  of  the  eucharist  to  adoring  old  people  and 
other  superstitious  folk,  who  do  not  communicate  with  the 
sacraments1. 

We  notice  that  here  there  is  condemnation  of  what  is 
required  or  allowed  by  the  Prayer  Book — the  vestments 
and  crossings — as  well  as  of  that  which  is  not  mentioned. 

Though  the  ablutions  were  thus  performed  still  in  the 
old  manner,  there  must  have  been  on  some  occasions  at 
any  rate  a  change  in  the  time  of  performing  the  action. 

Following  the  example  of  the  Brandenburg  Order  of 
1540,  provision  is  made  in  the  First  Prayer  Book  for  the 
communion  of  the  sick  or  those  in  danger  of  death  with 
the  reserved  sacrament  in  both  kinds,  and  this  is  evidently 
intended  to  be  the  normal  method  of  giving  communion. 
We  read: 

And  if  the  same  day  there  be  a  celebration  of  the  holy  com- 
munion in  the  church,  then  shall  the  priest  reserve  at  the  open 
communion  so  much  of  the  sacrament  of  the  body  and  blood 
as  shall  serve  the  sick  person,  and  so  many  as  shall  com- 
municate with  him,  if  there  be  any.  And  so  soon  as  he  con- 
veniently may,  after  the  open  communion  ended  in  the  church, 
shall  go  and  minister  the  same,  first  to  those  that  are  appointed 
to  communicate  with  the  sick,  if  there  be  any,  and  last  of  all 
to  the  sick  person  himself.  But  before  the  curate  distribute 
the  holy  communion  the  appointed  general  confession  must  be 
made  in  the  name  of  the  communicants,  the  curate  adding  the 
absolution  with  the  comfortable  sentences  of  scripture  following 
in  the  open  communion,  and  after  the  communion  ended  the 
collect,  Almighty  and  everliving  God,  we  most  heartily  thank 
thee,  etc. 

There  is  also  another  rubric  at  the  end  of  the  office 
dealing  with  the  question  of  reservation : 

And  if  there  be  more  sick  persons  to  be  visited  the  same  day 
that  the  curate  doth  celebrate  in  any  sick  man's  house,  then 
shall  the  curate  there  reserve  so  much  of  the  sacrament  of  the 
1  Scripta  Anglicana,  pp.  493-4. 


x]  AND  THE  FIRST  PRAYER  BOOK  179 

body  and  blood  as  shall  serve  the  other  sick  persons,  and  such 
as  be  appointed  to  communicate  with  them,  if  there  be  any, 
and  shall  immediately  carry  it  and  minister  it  unto  them. 

These  rules  clearly  involved  the  remains  of  the  conse- 
crated elements  in  both  kinds,  or  some  of  them,  remaining 
on  the  altar  until  the  conclusion  of  the  mass.  Nothing, 
however,  is  said  about  what  is  to  be  done  with  what  is 
left  after  all  have  communicated  in  the  sick  man's  house, 
and  as  the  sick  man  is  to  communicate  last  that  something 
would  frequently  be  left  is  plain.  The  consumption  of  any 
such  remains  and  anything  in  the  nature  of  ablutions 
must  certainly  have  been  postponed,  and  could  not 
well  follow  immediately  after  the  communion.  The  words 
"last  of  all"  seem  decisive  against  this,  and  preclude  the 
consumption  by  the  priest  or  neighbours  at  this  point,  and 
by  the  sick  person  it  would  in  many  cases  be  impossible. 
That  whatever  was  left  over  was  reserved  until  the  con- 
clusion of  the  service  appears  to  be  the  only  possible  thing, 
and  it  is  not  improbable  that  the  same  order  was  intended 
to  be  observed  at  ordinary  celebrations  of  the  holy  com- 
munion in  church. 

According  to  the  Order  of  Communion  after  the  distri- 
bution of  the  sacrament  there  followed  the  new  communion 
Pax,  the  consumption,  of  the  remains,  the  thanksgiving, 
Gratias  tibi,  said  secretly,  and  then  the  ablutions.  It 
seems  unlikely  that  now  the  thanksgiving  is  said  publicly 
the  consumption  of  the  remains  would  come  before  it  and 
the  ablutions  afterwards.  Indeed  it  seems  clear  from  a 
comparison  of  the  wording  in  the  Order  of  Communion 
with  that  in  the  thanksgiving,  and  elsewhere  in  the  new 
communion  service,  that  the  disposal  of  what  was  left  was 
not  intended  to  take  place  before  the  saying  of  the  thanks- 
giving. To  Cranmer,  whatever  might  be  his  views  at  the 
moment,  the  eucharistic  elements  were  rightly  called  "the 
mysteries"  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  and  in  this 

12 — 2 


l8o  THE  ORDER  OF  COMMUNION  [ch. 

sense  he  uses  the  word  "mysteries"  very  many  times  in 
his  book  on  The  true  and  catholic  Doctrine  and  Use  of  the 
Sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Slipper.  In  the  exhortation  in  the 
Order  of  Communion  to  be  said  after  the  consecration  in  the 
presence  of  the  holy  sacrament  we  read :  "meet  partakers  of 
these  holy  mysteries,"  "he  hath  left  in  these  holy  mysteries 
as  a  pledge  of  his  love."  In  the  First  Prayer  Book,  where  the 
position  of  the  exhortation  has  been  changed  to  a  point 
before  the  elements  are  placed  on  the  altar,  immediately 
after  the  sermon,  we  find  instead  "meet  partakers  of  those 
holy  mysteries,"  "he  hath  left  in  those  holy  mysteries  as 
a  pledge  of  his  love."  Similar  changes  may  be  noted  in 
the  use  of  other  expressions  as  "this  holy  communion," 
"this  holy  sacrament,"  "this  most  blessed  bread."  In 
spite  of  the  care  shown  however  in  making  these  altera- 
tions we  find  in  the  thanksgiving  which  appears  for  the 
first  time  in  the  First  Prayer  Book,  "thou  hast  vouchsafed 
to  feed  us  in  these  holy  mysteries,"  words  which  certainly 
seem  to  imply  the  presence  of  the  sacrament.  The  doctrine 
of  the  First  Prayer  Book  with  respect  to  our  Lord's  pre- 
sence in  the  eucharist  is  declared  in  the  final  rubric,  con- 
tinued from  the  Order  of  Communion,  and  derived  perhaps 
ultimately  from  Gratian1.  After  requiring  the  eucharistic 
breads  to  be  broken  it  continues : 

And  men  must  not  think  less  to  be  received  in  part  than  in 
the  whole,  but  in  each  of  them  the  whole  body  of  our  Saviour 
Jesus  Christ. 

If  the  mysteries  remained  in  part,  the  sacrament  would 
continue  in  its  completeness,  and  this  is  suggested  by  the 
wording  of  the  thanksgiving.  Otherwise  in  view  of  the  care 
shown  in  correcting  the  adjectives  in  the  exhortation  it  is 
difficult  to  understand  the  deliberate  introduction  of  the 
word ' '  these ' '  which  seems  to  suppose  the  sacrament  present . 

1  Gratian,  Decrelum,  Pars  ill.  De  Consec.  Dist.  n.  c.  77,  P.L.  clxxxvii. 
col.  1 772-3. 


x]  AND  THE  FIRST  PRAYER  BOOK  181 

If  the  consumption  of  the  remains  of  the  sacrament 
came  after  the  thanksgiving  it  must  certainly  have  come 
after  the  new  communion  Pax  and  blessing  also,  and  this 
would  agree  with  what  was  apparently  the  original  inten- 
tion of  the  new  Pax,  as  the  seal  of  the  fellowship  in  Christ 
assured  in  the  act  of  communion,  as  explained  in  the 
thanksgiving,  for  which  purpose  it  was  placed  as  closely 
as  possible  to  the  distribution  of  the  elements,  and  before 
the  consumption  of  the  remains. 

It  will  be  useful  also  to  note  the  importance  attached  to 
the  idea  that  every  celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper 
should  be  as  far  as  possible  something  approximating  to 
a  general  communion,  though  the  extreme  opinion  of 
some  of  the  reformers,  which  prevented  all  communion  of 
the  sick,  that  under  no  other  conditions  could  the  sacra- 
ment be  administered,  was  not  adopted.  An  examination 
of  the  language  of  the  Prayer  Book  shows  that  a  distinc- 
tion was  intended  to  be  drawn  by  the  compilers  between 
receiving  "the  sacrament  of  Christ's  body  and  blood"  and 
the  receiving  of  "the  holy  communion  of  the  body  and 
blood  of  our  Saviour  Christ."  The  latter  always  supposes 
the  fellowship  of  the  communicants  about  the  Lord's 
table,  and  though  the  idea  itself  is  not  absent,  in  no  single 
instance,  it  would  seem,  is  the  word  "  communion  "  intended 
to  refer  to  the  communion  with  our  Lord,  but  only  with 
the  fellow  worshippers.  The  meaning  of  the  noun  is  in 
exact  agreement  with  that  of  the  phrase  "to  communicate 
with,"  and  is  used  of  fellowship  with  other  men.  For  the 
reception  of  the  sacrament  to  be  a  communion  it  was 
necessary  to  communicate  with  other  persons,  and  as 
many  as  possible.  The  rubric  required  that  there  should 
be  no  celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper  "except  there  be 
some  to  communicate  with  the  priest."  To  secure  as 
general  a  communion  as  possible  on  every  occasion  there 
were  only  two  days  in  the  year  on  which  provision  was 
made  for  more  than  one  celebration.  The  multiplication 


182  THE  ORDER  OF  COMMUNION         [ch.  x. 

of  masses  with  few  or  no  communicants  was  intended  to 
cease,  and  this  was  a  point  insisted  on  by  the  authorities 
as  Bishop  Bonner  found  when  he  tried  to  introduce  a 
number  of  masses  or  "communions,"  as  of  our  Lady  and 
the  apostles,  in  the  chapels  of  St  Paul's  cathedral1. 

From  this  fact  that  every  celebration  of  the  Lord's 
supper  was  intended  to  be  something  akin  to  a  general 
communion  we  may  draw  another  argument  with  regard 
to  the  point  at  which  the  remains  of  the  sacrament  were 
consumed  and  the  ablutions  made,  and  it  tends  to  the 
same  conclusion.  When  communion  had  been  given  only 
in  one  kind  the  consecrated  hosts  which  were  left  remained 
on  the  altar  according  to  the  almost  universal  custom  of 
the  church  in  the  West,  at  Rome  and  elsewhere,  and  were 
not  disposed  of  by  being  put  away  in  the  place  of  reserva- 
tion until  the  end  of  mass,  a  relic  of  the  primitive  custom 
by  which  both  the  consumption  of  the  remains  of  the 
elements  in  both  kinds  and  the  ablutions  had  taken  place 
after  the  service.  Now  that  communion  was  once  more 
given  in  both  kinds  it  would  be  quite  what  might  be  ex- 
pected that  the  practice  which  had  survived  in  the  case  of 
the  hosts  should  be  extended  to  the  wine  also,  the  practical 
reasons  for  it  being  even  stronger  than  in  the  case  of  the 
bread,  though  now  the  method  of  disposal  would  normally 
be  by  consumption,  as  in  the  earliest  days,  and  not  by 
reservation  in  church.  So  far  as  we  can  see  then,  though 
there  is  no  definite  statement  on  the  subject,  all  the  argu- 
ments point  to  the  idea  that  the  compilers  of  the  First 
Prayer  Book  intended  a  reversion  to  primitive  usage,  such 
as  is  mentioned  in  the  letter  of  the  pseudo  Clement,  and 
that  the  consumption  of  the  remains  of  the  sacrament 
should  not  take  place  until  the  conclusion  of  the  service, 
and  if  so  obviously  the  ablutions  could  not  take  place 
earlier. 

1  Foxe,  Acts  and  Monuments,  ed.  Pratt,  vol.  v.  p.  723.   Grey  Friars' 
Chronicle  (Camden  Society,  53),  p.  59. 


CHAPTER  XI 

THE  SECOND  PRAYER  BOOK  AND  THE 
ELIZABETHAN  SETTLEMENT 

IN  the  Second  Prayer  Book,  published  in  1552  by  the 
authority  of  parliament  only,  there  was  still  further 
departure  from  traditional  notions  and  practices  than  had 
been  intended  under  the  First  Book,  and  particularly  in 
the  service  for  the  administration  of  the  Lord's  Supper, 
and  in  the  ideas  with  respect  to  it.  A  great  many  of  the 
changes  seem  to  be  due  to  criticisms  of  the  First  Prayer 
Book  by  Bucer  in  his  Censura.  Some  appear  to  be  due  to 
Swiss  influence  and  particularly  that  of  Zurich,  probably 
through  the  influence  of  John  Hooper  who  had  just 
returned  (in  1549)  from  that  city,  and  was  full  of  the  ideas 
he  had  imbibed  there  during  his  exile.  We  may  see 
examples  of  it  in  the  insistence  on  the  use  of  the  full  text 
of  the  ten  commandments  according  to  the  twentieth 
chapter  of  Exodus,  a  favourite  notion  of  Hooper's,  as  in 
the  Zurich  service  books,  and  in  such  phrases  as  "remem- 
ber the  poor,"  found  in  all  versions  of  the  Zurich  liturgy, 
and  consequently  in  that  of  John  a  Lasco.  The  idea  that 
at  every  celebration  of  the  Lord's  supper  there  should  be 
a  general  communion  is  still  further  emphasised  in  the 
Second  Prayer  Book.  At  Bucer's  suggestion  there  is  for 
the  future  to  be  only  one  communion  even  on  Christmas 
and  Easter  Days.  The  rubric  of  the  First  Prayer  Book  is 
altered  to  read : 

And  there  shall  be  no  celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper, 
except  there  be  a  good  number  to  communicate  with  the  priest 
according  to  his  discretion.  And  if  there  be  not  above  twenty 


184  THE  SECOND  PRAYER  BOOK  [ch. 

persons  in  the  parish  of  discretion  to  receive  the  communion, 
yet  there  shall  be  no  communion  except  four  or  three  at  the 
least  communicate  with  the  priest. 

Also  there  is  to  be  no  private  celebration  for  a  sick  person 
except  there  be  "a  good  number  to  receive  the  com- 
munion with  the  sick  person." 

The  breaking  up  of  the  Canon  in  the  Second  Prayer 
Book  and  the  removal  of  the  confession  and  absolution, 
etc.,  were  in  accordance  with  Bucer's  suggestions  that  the 
communion  should  follow  the  Great  Thanksgiving  immedi- 
ately, so  as  to  secure  a  closer  conformity  to  our  Lord's 
own  practice.  For  the  same  reason  presumably  the  Lord's 
prayer  was  made  to  follow  the  administration,  though 
there  was  considerable  precedent  for  this  in  the  various 
orders  for  giving  communion  apart  from  mass.  Since  the 
Lord's  prayer  has  always  been  regarded  as  belonging  to 
the  communion,  and  not  to  the  consecration,  as  we  see  in 
all  the  liturgies,  though  Gregory  the  Great  wished  it  to 
be  said  over  the  oblation,  the  difference  was  not  of  vital 
importance. 

The  new  position  of  the  Gloria  in  Excelsis  after  the 
thanksgiving  for  communion  opens  out  a  wider  problem, 
and  here  we  seem  to  recognise  the  influence  of  Zurich.  In 
the  Zurich  liturgy  the  Gloria  had  been  moved  from  the 
beginning  of  the  service,  and  was  sung  between  the  epistle 
and  gospel.  The  idea  of  our  Lord  as  the  Lamb  of  God,  and 
the  Lord's  supper  as  the  Christian  passover,  is  a  feature  of 
the  Zurich  service.  After  the  communion  we  read  in  the 
1535  edition: 

And  he  reads  (John  xiii  )  as  long  as  is  required  until  the 
breaking  of  the  bread  is  entirely  ended,  and  all  the  ministers 
have  come  back  again  to  the  table  with  the  cups.  Then  the 
pastor  says,  Let  us  kneel  down  and  praise  God  and  give  him 
thanks.  Then  he  begins  the  following  psalm  which  the  Jews 
always  say  at  their  passover,  the  deacons  saying  one  verse 


xi]     AND  THE  ELIZABETHAN  SETTLEMENT    185 

and   then   another.     The   pastor  says,   Praise  the  Lord,  ye 
servants...  (Ps.  cxiii)1. 

As  an  alternative  to  this  psalm,  the  beginning  of  the 
Jewish  Hallel,  there  is  another  hymn  of  thanksgiving,  a 
Christian  Hallel  as  it  were,  made  up  partly  of  psalm 
verses,  and  partly  it  would  seem  of  a  paraphrase  of  the 
ancient  proper  preface  for  Easter  Day,  which  speaks  of 
Christ  as  the  paschal  Lamb.   We  read: 

I  will  magnify  thee,  my  God,  and  will  praise  thy  name  for 
ever  and  ever. ...He  gave  us  his  only  Son,  that  we  through  him 
might  live.  He  hath  made  his  flesh  and  blood  to  be  our  proper 
food,  and  by  his  death  hath  brought  us  to  everlasting  life. 
He  is  the  Lamb  of  God,  the  pardon  for  our  sins,  the  one  and 
only  pledge  of  mercy2. 

Zwingli  in  his  Fidei  ratio  of  July  8,  1530,  gave  his  belief 
with  regard  to  our  Lord's  presence  in  this  supper  as 
follows : 

I  believe  that  in  the  holy  eucharist,  that  is  in  the  supper  of 
thanksgiving,  the  true  body  of  Christ  is  present  by  the  con- 
templation of  faith,  that  is,  that  those  who  give  thanks  to  the 
Lord  for  the  benefit  He  has  conferred  upon  us  in  His  Son, 
recognise  that  He  took  upon  Him  true  flesh,  in  that  flesh  truly 
suffered,  truly  washed  away  our  sins  by  His  blood,  and  thus 
everything  wrought  by  Christ  for  them  becomes  as  it  were 
present  by  the  contemplation  of  faith3. 

The  same  idea  is  expressed  in  an  exhortation  added  to 
the  1525  edition  of  the  Zurich  service  in  Zwingli's  own 
hand4,  and  repeated  with  but  slight  modifications  in  later 
editions.   We  read: 

Now  remembering,  dear  brethren  and  sisters,  what  we  have 
now  performed  according  to  the  commandment  of  our  Lord, 
namely  that  with  thankful  remembrance  we  have  borne  witness 

1  Wolfensberger,  Die  Ziircher  Kirchengebete,  p.  55. 
a  Wolfensberger,  p.  56. 

3  Kidd,  Documents  of  the  Continental  Reformation,  p.  474. 

4  Sraend,  Die  Evangelischen  Deutschen  Messen,  p.  201. 


186  THE  SECOND  PRAYER  BOOK  [ch. 

to  our  faith,  that  we  are  all  miserable  sinners,  but  by  his  body 
given  and  his  blood  poured  forth  we  have  been  cleansed  from 
sin,  and  redeemed  from  everlasting  death... we  ought  also  truly 
to  pray  God  to  grant  unto  us  all  to  hold  with  firm  faith  within 
our  hearts  this  remembrance  of  his  bitter  death,  and  bear  it 
steadfastly  with  us,  and  therewith  die  daily  to  all  wickedness... 
God  be  merciful  unto  us  and  bless  us  and  shed  forth  the  light 
of  his  countenance  upon  us,  and  be  merciful  unto  us1. 

The  presence  of  our  Lord,  dramatically  represented  in 
the  supper,  and  manifest  to  the  eye  of  faith  in  the  act  of 
communion  as  crucified  for  us,  is  something  very  real  and 
abiding,  so  that  throughout  the  concluding  portion  of  the 
service  He  is  worshipped  as  exhibited  to  the  faithful  in 
the  sacrament,  "the  Lamb  as  it  had  been  slain,"  "present 
by  the  contemplation  of  faith,"  and  prayer  is  made  to 
Him  that  His  presence  may  be  shown  in  our  lives.  With 
a  thanksgiving  to  Jesus  the  service  concludes: 

0  God,  we  thank  thee  for  all  thy  gifts  and  goodness,  who 
livest  and  reignest  God  for  ever  and  ever.   Amen2. 

This  seems  to  suggest  a  reason,  if  not  the  only  one,  for 
the  removal  of  the  Gloria  in  excelsis,  which  had  already 
been  moved  from  its  ancient  place  at  the  beginning  of  the 
service  in  the  Zurich  liturgy,  to  its  present  position  in  the 
English  service,  not  only  because  it  would  thus  be  an  act 
of  thanksgiving  for  participation  in  the  Christian  passover, 
a  Christian  Hallel,  but  because  it  was  an  act  of  wrorship 
of  Jesus,  Who  is  both  outwardly  exhibited  as  the  Lamb  of 
God,  and  also  specially  manifest  to  the  hearts  of  the 
faithful,  in  the  sacrament.  In  the  First  English  Prayer 
Book  before  Ye  that  do  truly,  and  the  confession  and 
absolution  the  priest  thus  addresses  the  people  and  invites 
them  to  the  feast : 

1  Richter,  Evangelisch.   Kirchenord.  p.    138.    For  1535  edition  see 
Wolfensberger,  p.  57. 

2  Richter,  p.  138.   Wolfensberger,  p.  57. 


XI]     AND  THE  ELIZABETHAN  SETTLEMENT    187 

Christ  our  Paschal  Lamb  is  offered  up  for  us,  once  for  all, 
when  he  bare  our  sins  on  his  body  upon  the  cross,  for  he  is  the 
very  Lamb  of  God  that  taketh  away  the  sins  of  the  world. 
Wherefore  let  us  keep  a  joyful  and  holy  feast  with  the  Lord. 

A  similar  form  is  found  at  the  same  point  in  a  Lasco's 
service,  really  a  version  of  that  of  Zurich,  for  the  Strangers' 
Church  in  London,  published  in  155 1,  and  probably  the 
two  are  not  unconnected.   We  read: 

Standing  in  the  midst  of  the  ministers,  turning  towards  the 
people,  he  recites  that  joyful  and  saving  message  to  the  whole 
church  from  Paul,  concerning  that  victim,  the  most  innocent 
in  the  whole  world,  now  offered  up  for  our  sins,  Christ  Jesus, 
in  these  words: 

Behold  now,  dear  brethren,  Christ  our  Passover  is  sacrificed 
for  us,  therefore  let  us  keep  the  feast,  not  with  the  old  leaven 
nor  with  the  leaven  of  malice  and  wickedness,  but  with  the 
unleavened  bread  of  sincerity  and  truth.  Through  the  same 
Jesus  Christ  our  Lord  and  Saviour.  Amen1. 

In  the  First  English  Prayer  Book,  as  in  the  liturgy  of 
Hermann's  Consultation,  the  Agnus  Dei  was  sung  during 
the  communion.  Originally  according  to  the  Liber  Ponti- 
ficalis  it  had  been  sung  during  the  breaking  of  the  bread, 
by  order  of  Pope  Sergius  I  (687-701) 2.  It  was  evidently 
intended  as  explanatory  of  the  symbolical  action  of  the 
Fraction,  an  idea  quite  in  accord  with  the  Zwinglian 
notion  of  the  Lord's  Supper  as  a  dramatic  representation 
of  redemption  and  an  exhibition  of  Jesus  to  the  faithful 
as  the  Lamb  of  God.  Both  the  invitation  and  the  Agnus 
Dei,  however,  were  omitted  from  the  Second  Prayer 
Book,  presumably  out  of  regard  for  Bucer's  suggestion  and 
to  avoid  what  he  called  "bread  worship."  The  worship  of 
our  Lord  as  manifest  to  the  eye  of  faith  in  the  sacrament, 
or  in  Zwingli's  w7ords  "present  by  the  contemplation  of 

1  J.  a  Lasco,  Forma  ac  Ratio  iota  Ecclesiastici  Ministerii,  pp.  252-3. 

2  Duchesne,  Liber  Pontificalis,  1.  p.  376. 


188  THE  SECOND  PRAYER  BOOK  [ch. 

faith,"  is  retained  in  what  apparently  was  considered  a 
less  dangerous  position  in  the  Gloria  in  excelsis,  which 
was  now  placed  after  the  thanksgiving  for  communion  to 
supply  the  idea  of  the  adoration  of  the  Lamb ;  and  perhaps 
for  this  reason  there  was  an  augmentation  of  the  text, 
which  suggests  the  three-fold  Agnus. 

In  accordance  with  Bucer's  suggestions  in  the  Second 
Prayer  Book  the  invocation  of  the  Holy  Ghost  over  the 
elements,  together  with  the  sign  of  the  cross  and  other 
manual  acts,  was  omitted;  and  generally  he  would  abolish 
all  idea  of  consecration  or  benediction  of  material  things, 
the  water  in  baptism  as  well  as  the  bread  and  wine  at  holy 
communion.  His  criticisms  of  the  rubrics  which  deal  with 
the  quantity  and  kind  of  bread  to  be  employed  are  particu- 
larly important.  Commenting  on  the  rubrics  of  the  First 
Prayer  Book  at  the  offertory  he  says  in  his  Censura : 

From  the  fourth  paragraph  of  this  order,  in  which  it  is 
prescribed  that  the  minister  ought  to  take  only  so  much  bread 
and  wine  as  will  suffice  for  those  about  to  communicate,  some 
make  for  themselves  the  superstition  that  they  consider  it 
unlawful  if  anything  of  the  bread  and  wine  of  the  communion 
remain  over,  when  it  is  finished,  to  allow  it  to  come  to  common 
use,  as  if  there  were  in  this  bread  and  wine  of  itself  anything 
of  divinity,  or  even  sanctity,  outside  the  use  at  communion. 
Consequently  however  much  bread  and  wine  remain  from  the 
communion  there  are  yet  some  who  consider  that  the  whole 
of  it  must  be  consumed  by  themselves.  And  so  men  must  be 
taught  that  Christ  the  Lord  is  offered  not  to  bread  and  wine 
but  to  devout  minds  by  the  words  of  the  Lord  and  these  sym- 
bols. Wherefore  outside  the  use  of  the  communion  which  the 
Lord  instituted,  the  bread  and  wine,  even  if  they  have  been 
placed  on  the  table  of  the  Lord,  have  nothing  in  them  of  sanctity 
more  than  have  other  bread  and  wine.  It  is  true  indeed  that 
we  read  in  the  writings  of  the  holy  fathers  that  these  remains 
in  some  churches  at  one  time  were  consumed  immediately 
after  the  communion  or  otherwise  by  the  ministers,  in  others 


xi]     AND  THE  ELIZABETHAN  SETTLEMENT    189 

that  they  were  reserved,  until  the  following  day,  as  Cyril 
reminded  Calosyrius1,  by  others  were  consumed  by  fire  as 
Hesychius  (Lib.  11.  in  Levit.)  is  witness2.  But  when  we  see  how 
Satan  with  powerful  and  pestilent  trickery  by  his  Roman 
antichrists  has  put  forward  for  so  many  generations  now 
bread  instead  of  Christ  for  us  to  adore  that  he  may  take  away 
from  us  all  perception  and  adoration  of  Christ  our  Saviour, 
we  ought  whatever  things  seem  to  favour  that  bread  worship 
and  are  used  by  the  antichrists  to  retain  the  same  in  the  hearts 
of  the  simpler  folk,  as  far  and  as  completely  as  possible  to 
banish  from  our  churches.  Christ  our  Lord  truly  gives  Himself 
indeed  to  His  faithful  people  that  they  may  enjoy  the  food  of 
eternal  life,  employing  for  that  purpose  His  words  and  the 
symbols  of  bread  and  wine;  and  so  indeed  whoever  with  true 
faith  in  Him  communicate  in  these  mysteries  as  He  Himself 
instituted  them  truly  receive  Him  by  the  apprehension  of  faith 
and  spirit.  And  so  in  this  use  of  giving  and  receiving  instituted 
by  the  Lord,  bread  and  wine  are  the  symbols  of  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ,  by  which  He  offers  Himself  to  us.  But  outside 
this  use  they  are  what  other  bread  and  wine  are,  for  nothing  in 
their  nature  is  changed,  nor  is  Christ  the  Lord  given  to  them 
but  to  faithful  minds.  These  things  it  is  fitting  that  the  people 
be  taught,  as  in  word  so  also  in  deed,  as  diligently  as  possible,  so 
that,  although  in  former  times  so  many  masses  and  such  horrible 
superstitions  about  this  sacred  matter  have  been  introduced,  men 
may  both  understand  its  true  meaning  and  resume  its  use3. 

Bucer's  doctrine  is  very  similar  to  that  of  Zwingli. 
According  to  Zwingli  Christ  was  present  in  the  sacrament 
"by  the  contemplation  of  faith,"  according  to  Bucer,  "by 
the  apprehension  of  faith  and  spirit."  Cranmer  had  ex- 
pressed almost  identical  opinions  in  his  work  on  The  true 
and  catholic  Doctrine  and  Use  of  the  Sacrament  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  published  the  previous  year,  1550.  Two 
extracts  are  of  importance.  The  first  is  Cranmer's  com- 
ment on  the  letter  of  the  pseudo  Clement.   We  read: 

1  See  pp.  6-7.  2  See  p.  9.  3  Scripta  Anglicana,  p.  464. 


190  THE  SECOND  PRAYER  BOOK  [ch. 

They  allege  St  Clement,  whose  words  be  these,  as  they 
report : 

The  sacraments  of  God's  secrets  are  committed  to  three 
degrees :  to  a  priest,  a  deacon  and  a  minister :  which  with  fear 
and  trembling  ought  to  keep  the  leavings  of  the  broken  pieces 
of  the  Lord's  body,  that  no  corruption  be  found  in  the  holy 
place,  lest  by  negligence  great  injury  be  done  to  the  portion  of 
the  Lord's  body. 

And  by  and  by  followeth: 

So  many  hosts  must  be  offered  in  the  altar  as  will  suffice 
for  the  people.  And,  if  any  remain,  they  must  not  be  kept  until 
the  morning,  but  be  spent  and  consumed  of  the  clerks  with 
fear  and  trembling.  And  they  that  consume  the  residue  of  the 
Lord's  body  may  not  by  and  by  take  other  common  meats, 
lest  they  should  mix  that  holy  portion  with  the  meat,  which  is 
digested  by  the  belly....  Thereto  re  if  the  Lord's  portion  be  eaten 
in  the  morning,  the  ministers  that  consume  it  must  fast  unto 
six  of  the  clock:  and  if  they  do  take  it  at  three  or  four  of  the 
clock,  the  minister  must  fast  until  the  evening.... 

For  by  the  same  epistle  appeareth  evidently  three  special 
things  against  the  errors  of  the  papists.  The  first  is,  that  the 
bread  in  the  sacrament  is  called  the  Lord's  body,  and  the  pieces 
of  the  broken  bread  be  called  the  pieces  and  fragments  of  the 
Lord's  body,  which  cannot  be  understand  but  figuratively. 
The  second  is,  that  the  bread  ought  not  to  be  reserved  and 
hanged  up.  as  the  papists  everywhere  do  use.  The  third  is, 
that  the  priests  ought  not  to  receive  the  sacrament  alone  (as 
the  papists  commonly  do,  making  a  sale  thereof  unto  the 
people)  but  they  ought  to  communicate  with  the  people.  And 
here  is  diligently  to  be  noted  that  we  ought  not  unreverently 
and  unadvisedly  to  approach  unto  the  meat  of  the  Lord's  table, 
as  we  do  to  other  common  meats  and  drinks,  but  with  great 
fear  and  dread,  lest  we  should  come  to  that  holy  table  un- 
worthily, wherein  is  not  only  represented,  but  also  spiritually 
given  unto  us,  very  Christ  Himself1. 

1  Cranmer,  The  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  Book  in.  Chap.  xv. 
(Parker  Society),  pp.  14 1-2. 


xi]     AND  THE  ELIZABETHAN  SETTLEMENT    191 

The  phraseology  of  this  extract  in  quite  a  number  of 
particulars  we  shall  find  reproduced  in  the  rubrics  of  the 
Second  Prayer  Book.  We  notice  that  what  Cranmer  under- 
stands to  be  condemned  by  the  letter  of  the  pseudo 
Clement  is  not  the  carrying  of  the  sacrament  to  the  sick 
after  the  service  the  same  day,  a  practice  provided  for  in 
the  First  Prayer  Book,  but  the  hanging  of  it  up  or  con- 
tinual reservation.  In  another  place  a  little  further  on  we 
find  even  closer  agreement  with  the  quotation  from  Bucer. 
We  read: 

When  common  bread  and  wine  be  taken  and  severed  from 
other  bread  and  wine  to  the  use  of  the  holy  communion,  that 
portion  of  bread  and  wine,  although  it  be  the  same  substance 
that  the  other  is  from  the  which  it  is  severed,  yet  it  is  now  called 
consecrated,  or  holy  bread  and  holy  wine.  Not  that  the  bread 
and  wine  have  or  can  have  any  holiness  in  them,  but  that  they 
be  used  to  an  holy  work  and  represent  holy  and  godly  things. 
And  therefore  St  Dionyse  calleth  the  bread  holy  bread,  and  the 
cup  an  holy  cup,  as  soon  as  they  be  set  upon  the  altar  to  the 
use  of  the  holy  communion.  But  specially  they  may  be  called 
holy  and  consecrated,  when  they  be  separated  to  that  holy 
use  by  Christ's  own  words,  which  He  spake  for  that  purpose, 
saying  of  the  bread  "This  is  my  body,"  and  of  the  wine  "This 
is  my  blood."  So  that  commonly  the  authors  before  those 
words  be  spoken  do  take  the  bread  and  wine  but  as  other 
common  bread  and  wine ;  but  after  those  words  be  pronounced 
over  them,  then  they  take  them  for  consecrated  and  holy 
bread  and  wine.  Not  that  the  bread  and  wine  can  be  partakers 
of  any  holiness  or  godliness,  or  can  be  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ,  but  that  they  represent  the  very  body  and  blood  of 
Christ  and  the  holy  food  and  nourishment  which  we  have  by 
Him1. 

We  see  that  the  ideas  of  Bucer,  as  expressed  in  his 
Censura,  are  little  more  than  a  reproduction  of  Cranmer's. 
It  is  not  surprising  then  that  Cranmer  should  fall  in  to 
some  extent  with  Bucer's  suggestions  for  the  disposal  of 

1  Book  in.  Chap.  xv.  pp.  177-8. 


192  THE  SECOND  PRAYER  BOOK  [ch. 

the  remains  of  the  sacrament  after  the  communion,  so  that 
the  rule  adopted,  though  it  did  not,  as  we  shall  see, 
actually  insist  upon  this  being  done,  was  such  as  to  allow 
the  residue  of  the  bread  and  wine  to  return  to  something 
akin  to  common  use,  a  practice  it  would  seem  already 
adopted  by  some,  but  scrupulously  avoided  by  others, 
in  Bucer's  view  out  of  wanton  superstition.  Another 
quotation  from  the  Censura  will  make  the  reason  for  the 
new  rubric  in  the  Second  Prayer  Book  still  more  obvious ; 
it  was  to  conciliate  those  who  held  opinions  such  as 
Bucer's.   We  read: 

But  lest  any  should  fear  that  by  conformity  to  this  anything 
superstitious  should  be  strengthened,  as  that  it  were  lawful 
to  use  such  bread  and  no  other,  it  ma}7  be  possible  to  add  in 
one  or  two  words  that  it  must  not  be  thought  from  this 
description  of  the  bread  that  it  is  not  lawful  of  itself  to  use  in 
the  eucharist  leavened  and  usual  bread,  and  that  the  matter 
and  form  of  the  bread  which  is  described  in  the  book  is  only  pro- 
posed, as  it  is  stated  in  words  also  in  this  section,  "  for  avoiding 
of  all  matters  and  occasion  of  dissension,"  and  also  of  offence 
to  the  simple  and  the  contempt  of  this  sacred  ordinance,  which 
is  commonly  wont  to  ensue1. 

That  the  rubric  of  the  Second  Prayer  Book  was  intended 
to  carry  out  this  suggestion  is  plain.    It  runs: 

And  to  take  away  the  superstition  which  any  person  hath 
or  might  have  in  the  bread  and  wine  it  shall  suffice  that  the 
bread  be  such  as  is  usual  to  be  eaten  at  the  table  with  other 
meats,  but  the  best  and  purest  wheat  bread  that  conveniently 
may  be  gotten.  And  if  any  of  the  bread  or  wine  remain,  the 
curate  shall  have  it  to  his  own  use. 

In  spite  of  later  interpretations  there  can  be  little 
doubt  but  that  the  direction  about  what  remains  was 
intended  originally  to  refer  to  the  consecrated  bread  and 
wine  as  well  as  to  what  was  unconsecrated,  for  it  was  not 
supposed,  as  we  have  seen,  by  either  Cranmer  or  Bucer 

1  Scripta  Anglicana,  p.  459. 


xi]     AND  THE  ELIZABETHAN  SETTLEMENT    193 

that  consecration  had  made  any  real  difference.  And  yet 
the  rubric  is  to  some  extent  a  compromise,  for  it  by  no 
means  goes  the  full  length  of  Bucer's  suggestions,  and  it 
might  have  been  much  more  peremptory  in  requiring  con- 
formity to  the  new  ideas.  It  is  not  directed  that  the 
remains  of  the  sacrament,  which  presumably  remain  on 
the  holy  table  until  the  end  of  the  service,  shall  return  to 
common  use,  or  to  that  of  the  multitude,  but  only  of 
the  curate.  Consequently  the  primitive  and  widespread 
custom  by  which  the  remains  were  consumed  by  the 
priest  and  other  ministers  in  the  sacristy,  as  prescribed  in 
the  letter  of  pseudo  Clement,  the  language  of  which — and 
that  according  to  Cranmer's  translation — and  of  his  com- 
ments upon  it,  the  new  rubric  seems  at  several  points  to 
adopt,  was  in  no  way  prevented,  and  it  was  probably  the 
deliberate  intention  that  it  should  be  so,  "  for  avoiding  of 
all  matters  and  occasion  of  dissension"  as  the  First  Prayer 
Book  said  when  speaking  of  the  kind  of  bread  to  be  used. 
Such  an  interpretation  at  any  rate  would  almost  certainly 
be  put  upon  the  rubric  by  those  who  favoured  the  old 
ways.  There  must  have  been  many  who  used  the  book 
under  compulsion,  even  with  scrupulous  exactness  and 
with  no  breach  of  rubric,  who  by  no  means  assented  to 
the  principles  of  the  revisers  who  had  made  it  what  it  was. 
Peter  Martyr  took  much  the  same  view  of  the  value  of 
consecration  as  did  Bucer  in  his  criticism  of  the  First 
Prayer  Book.  Like  the  continental  reformers  generally  he 
maintained  that  the  recitation  of  the  words  of  institution 
was  for  the  edification  of  the  hearers  only,  and  conse- 
quently he  objected  to  a  second  recital  of  these  words  in 
the  event  of  the  original  supply  of  bread  and  wine  not 
sufficing,  and  also  to  reservation  of  the  sacrament.  He 
wrote  to  Bucer: 

And  surely  it  is  wonderful  that  they  find  it  a  burden  to  say 
those  words  in  the  presence  of  the  sick  man  to  whom  they 
l.  e.  13 


194  THE  SECOND  PRAYER  BOOK  [ch. 

would  be  especially  useful  when  they  say  them  uselessly  in  the 
temple  if  the  wine  has  happened  to  fail  in  the  cup  when  the 
men  who  are  present  and  are  receiving  the  sacrament  have 
already  heard  them1. 

We  notice  that  the  practice  of  a  second  consecration 
had  evidently  continued  under  the  First  Prayer  Book, 
though  no  longer  prescribed  as  in  the  Order  of  Communion. 
To  meet  the  wishes  of  those  who  objected  to  this  custom 
and  who  regarded  the  words  as  for  the  edification  of  the 
congregation,  all  reference  to  reservation,  which  would 
make  the  recital  of  the  words  in  the  presence  of  the  sick 
person  unnecessary,  and  assume  some  virtue  in  consecra- 
tion, was  omitted  in  the  Second  Prayer  Book,  though  the 
practice  is  not  forbidden  as  we  might  have  expected. 

In  a  paragraph  following  the  public  service  of  holy 
communion  in  Hermann's  Consultation  the  opinions  of 
Bucer  in  an  earlier  stage  of  development  than  what  we 
find  in  the  Censura,  come  out  quite  plainly,  and  we  find 
a  condemnation  of  reservation  in  marked  contrast  with 
what  was  allowed  to  appear  in  the  Second  Prayer  Book. 
We  read: 

But  since  our  Lord  instituted  His  sacrament  only  that  we 
should  eat  and  drink  of  it  in  remembrance  of  Him,  and  in  no 
wise  that  we  should  set  it  out,  or  carry  it  round  to  view,  and 
because  this  sacrament  has  been  brought  to  horrible  super- 
stition and  impiety,  from  the  fact  that  abuses  of  this  sort  have 
been  introduced  in  the  former  use  of  the  sacrament,  to  take 
away  both  that  superstition  and  impiety  and  also  the  various 
scruples  of  the  feeble  and  irreligious  questions  about  these 
mysteries,  pastors  and  those  who  minister  the  sacrament  will 
give  heed  that  as  often  as  the  supper  has  to  be  administered, 
whether  in  church  or  in  private  houses  for  the  sick,  they  care- 
fully reckon  the  number  of  those  who  are  going  to  communicate, 
that  in  accordance  with  it  they  may  take  the  particles  of  bread 
and  the  quantity  of  wine.    But  whatever  of  the  remnants  is 

1  Strype,  Memorials  of  Thomas  Cranmcr,  vol.  n.  Num.  lxi.  p.  899. 


xi]     AND  THE  ELIZABETHAN  SETTLEMENT    195 

left  over,  when  the  communion  is  finished,  let  them  immediately 
consume  it,  and  not  reserve  it,  or  put  it  away  anywhere,  or 
carry  it  away,  or  set  it  out  to  view1. 

There  was  little  agreement,  however,  among  the  various 
reformed  liturgies  about  what  was  to  be  done  with  what 
was  left  after  the  communion.  Pullain  in  his  order  of 
service  for  the  refugees  at  Glastonbury  published  in  155 1, 
and  representing  it  would  seem  the  custom  of  the  French 
church  at  Strasburg,  says: 

After  all  have  communicated,  and  they  have  returned  one 
by  one  to  their  places,  the  deacon  puts  down  the  chalice  and 
returns  to  his  place,  and  then  the  pastor  leads  the  people  in 
thanksgiving  in  these  words2. 

The  chalice  was  apparently  put  back  on  the  holy  table, 
as  we  saw  also  at  Zurich,  but  nothing  is  said  about  what 
happens  to  what  is  left.  Evidently  it  was  not  consumed 
before  the  end  of  the  service  if  we  may  judge  from  the 
rule  "for  administering  the  eucharist  to  the  sick."  We 
read: 

If  a  sick  man  asks  for  the  eucharist  on  the  day  on  which 
the  supper  is  celebrated  by  the  church,  the  deacon  is  sent  with 
a  few  pious  persons,  that  they  may  communicate  with  the 
sick  man3. 

It  would  seem  as  if  the  "pious  persons"  communicate  a 
second  time  with  the  sick  man,  and  apparently  the  deacon 
also,  a  practice  which  appears  to  have  been  adopted  also 
in  the  reign  of  Elizabeth  under  the  rubrics  of  the  Second 
Prayer  Book.  The  custom  by  which  the  priest  took  with 
him  some  of  the  congregation  who  had  been  present  at  the 
celebration  in  church  to  the  sick  person's  house  was  incor- 
porated by  Aless  in  155 1  in  the  rubrics  of  the  order  for 
the  communion  of  the  sick,  in  his  Latin  version  of  the 
First  Prayer  Book. 

1  Hermann,  Simplex  ac  pia  Deliberatio,  f.  97  a. 

2  Pullain,  Liturgia  Sacra,  f.  rr.  3  Pullain,  f.  28. 

13—2 


196  THE  SECOND  PRAYER  BOOK  [ch. 

In  155 1  John  a  Lasco  put  out  in  Latin  the  service  used 
in  his  church  for  strangers  in  Austin  Friars,  a  translation 
into  French  being  published  in  1556,  into  Dutch  in  1563, 
into  German  in  1565,  and  also  one  into  Italian.  A  special 
interest  attaches  to  it  in  connection  with  the  origin  and 
interpretation  of  the  order  on  the  same  subject  in  the 
present  Book  of  Common  Prayer.  We  read : 

And  the  deacons  at  the  doors  of  the  temple  collect  the  alms 
for  the  poor;  and  the  remnants  of  the  bread  and  wine,  which 
were  left  over  from  the  use  of  the  supper,  they  bestow  on  the 
poor  of  the  church  as  each  one  has  need,  especially  if  there 
are  any  who  are  infirm  or  aged1. 

It  seems  plain  from  the  words  "as  each  one  has  need" 
that  what  is  intended  is  not  a  consumption  of  the  remains 
at  the  door  of  the  church,  but  only  a  distribution  there, 
the  remnants  being  taken  out  of  the  church  for  use  at 
home. 

It  may  be  useful  to  quote  the  views  of  other  reformers 
even  though  their  influence  on  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer  was  not  so  direct.  Bullinger  in  The  Fifth  Decade  of 
the  Lord's  Supper  takes  much  the  same  line  as  Bucer,  and 
in  his  later  days  Cranmer,  that  there  is  no  holiness  in  the 
elements  apart  from  their  use.  There  would  thus  be  no 
point  in  such  an  administration  to  the  sick  with  what  was 
left  over  from  the  service  in  church  as  is  provided  for  by 
the  First  Prayer  Book  and  Pullain's  Glastonbury  liturgy. 
Indeed  he  refused,  as  we  know,  even  a  celebration  for  the 
sick  on  the  ground  that  it  is  a  public  service.   We  read: 

The  remnants  of  the  supper.  Of  these  things  before  handled 
springeth  another  question:  What  is  to  be  thought  of  the 
remnants  and  leavings  of  the  Lord's  Supper;  and  whether 
there  ought  any  part  of  it  to  be  reserved;  and  whether  that 
which  is  reserved  or  shut  up  ought  to  be  adored?  This  question 
seemeth  to  have  no  godliness  at  all  in  it,  but  to  be  altogether 

1   J.  a  Lasco,  Forma  ac  Ratio,  p.  269. 


xi]     AND  THE  ELIZABETHAN  SETTLEMENT    197 

superstitious  and  very  hurtful.  For  who  knoweth  not  that 
bread  and  wine,  out  of  the  holy  and  lawful  use  appointed,  are 
not  a  sacrament1? 

Thomas  Becon  in  his  Comparison  between  the  Lord's 
Supper  and  the  Pope's  Mass,  says : 

Christ  when  the  banquet  was  done,  did  not  command  His 
disciples  that  they  should  gather  up  and  keep  in  store  the 
fragments  that  be  left  and  remained  of  the  sacramental  bread ; 
which  thing,  notwithstanding,  we  read  that  He  did  often  before 
concerning  the  common  bread2. 

In  his  Catechism  of  the  Sacraments,  and  also  in  Certain 
Articles  of  Christian  Religion,  he  interprets  the  words  of  the 
pseudo  Jerome  already  quoted,  which  speak  of  a  feast  being 
held  in  church  from  that  part  of  the  people's  offerings 
which  was  not  needed  for  consecration,  as  though  they 
referred  to  what  had  been  consecrated3.  Jewel  has  the 
same  wrong  interpretation,  and  likewise  others4. 

The  reformers  everywhere  however  did  not  disapprove  of 
some  special  honour  being  paid  to  the  remains  of  the  sacra- 
ment and  their  reverent  consumption.  In  the  liturgy  of 
the  reformed  church  of  Sweden,  drawn  up  by  Laurence 
Petri,  a  disciple  of  Luther  at  Wittenberg,  and  afterwards 
archbishop  of  Upsala,  which  was  published  in  1576,  we 
find  provision  for  an  ablution  also.  This  order  for  the 
celebration  of  mass  as  it  is  called,  though  it  incorporates 
a  number  of  the  reformed  ideas,  is  based  on  the  Roman 
service,  and  contains  many  of  the  Roman  prayers,  some 
in  a  modified  form,  but  there  are  also  apparently  reminis- 
cences of  passages  in  the  communion  service  of  the  English 
Book  of  Common  Prayer.  A  peculiarity  is  that  as  in  the 
liturgy  of  SS.  Adai  and  Mari  the  priest  does  not  com- 
municate until  he  consumes  the  remains  of  the  sacrament, 

1  Bullinger,  Works  (Parker  Society),  vol.  v.  p.  422. 

2  Becon,  Works  (P.S.),  vol.  in.  pp.  372-3. 

3  Works  (P.S.),  vol.  11.  p.  251,  vol.  in.  p.  456.  See  p.  11. 

4  Jewel,  Works  (P.S.),  vol.  n.  pp.  553-4.    Seep.  207.  Cf.  pp.  209,  211. 


t98  THE  SECOND  PRAYER  BOOK  [ch. 

though  this  is  not  at  the  end  of  the  service  as  with  the 
Nestorians,  but  immediately  after  the  communion  of  the 
people.   We  read : 

When  the  celebrant  himself  is  about  to  communicate,  taking 
in  his  hands  the  blessed  and  sanctified  bread,  he  reverently 
genuflects  saying  Partem  caelestem.  Then  he  says  thrice  D online 
■non  sum  dignus.  When  he  is  about  to  receive  he  says,  Corpus 
Domini  nostri  Jesu  Christi,  etc.  Having  received  the  body  of 
Christ  with  joined  hands  he  keeps  his  thoughts  occupied  in 
meditation  on  the  most  holy  sacrament,  that  its  use  may  be 
salutary  to  us.  Then  when  he  is  about  to  take  the  chalice  into 
his  hands  he  reverently  genuflects  saying  Quid  retribuam. 
Partaking  of  the  chalice  he  says,  Sanguis  Domini  nostri  Jesu 
Christi,  etc.  Afterwards  he  says  to  himself  Quod  ore.  Then  he 
pours  a  little  wine  into  the  chalice,  and  when  he  drinks  it  up 
he  says  to  himself  Corpus  tuum1. 

The  Second  English  Prayer  Book  had  been  published 
with  the  authority  of  Parliament  only  in  1552,  and  was 
never  officially  sanctioned  by  the  church.  As  it  was 
abolished  the  next  year  on  the  accession  of  Mary  it  can 
hardly  be  said  really  to  have  been  accepted  in  practice. 
The  principles  which  had  suggested  the  alterations  found 
in  it  with  regard  to  the  Lord's  Supper  were  never  more 
than  the  private  opinions  of  the  compilers,  and  the  book 
must  have  been  used  by  many  who  entirely  repudiated 
them.  Though  for  whatever  reasons  it  was  the  Second 
Prayer  Book  which  was  adopted  under  the  Elizabethan 
settlement  the  views  of  the  men  who  had  made  it  what  it 
was  were  by  no  means  those  of  the  authorities  of  the  time. 
The  idea  that  there  was  no  such  thing  as  any  consecration 
of  the  elements  in  Holy  Communion,  but  only  a  setting 
apart  for  a  holy  use,  was  deliberately  and  officially 
abandoned.  One  piece  of  evidence  is  the  addition  of  the 
words  of  administration  from  the  First  Prayer  Book  to 
the  newly  invented  forms  found  in  the  Second  Book,  so 

1  Assemani,  Codex  Liturgicus,  vol.  VI.  p.  lxxxiii. 


xi]     AND  THE  ELIZABETHAN  SETTLEMENT    199 

that  they  now  began  with  the  ancient  and  traditional  con- 
fession of  faith  in  the  sacrament — "The  body  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,"  "The  blood  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ." 

Another  piece  of  evidence  of  the  same  change  of  opinion 
in  official  circles  is  to  be  found  in  the  fact  that  in  the  Latin 
version  of  the  Prayer  Book  put  forth  by  authority  in  1560 
the  translator  Haddon,  who  evidently  based  his  work 
on  Aless's  version  of  the  First  Prayer  Book,  was  able 
without  contradiction  to  revert  to  some  extent  to  the  text 
of  that  book.  In  particular  we  find  that  the  rubric  about 
the  priest  having  for  his  own  use  whatever  is  left  of  the 
bread  and  wine  is  omitted,  and  Aless's  rendering  of  the 
rubric  of  the  First  Book,  providing  for  reservation,  is 
prefixed  to  the  order  for  the  communion  of  the  sick  with 
but  few  and  slight  alterations. 

Further  evidence  of  the  change  in  belief  among  those  in 
authority  is  to  be  found  in  the  trial  of  Robert  Johnson,  a 
preacher  at  Northampton  and  chaplain  to  the  Lord 
Keeper  Bacon,  which  took  place  at  Westminster  Hall 
before  the  Queen's  Commissioners,  including  the  Lord 
Chief  Justice,  the  Bishop  of  London,  the  Dean  of  West- 
minster and  others,  on  February  20,  1573.  The  chief 
offence  with  which  he  was  charged  was  that  he  had  used 
fresh  wine  at  a  communion  service  without  reciting  over 
them  the  words  of  institution.  He  quoted  Cranmer  and 
Bullinger  in  his  defence,  and  referred  also  to  the  opinions 
of  Musculus1,  Peter  Martyr  and  Calvin,  arguing  that  the 
words  were  used  for  the  edification  of  the  worshippers 
only,  not  to  effect  any  change  in  the  elements,  and  that 
as  they  had  been  recited  once  that  was  sufficient.  Parts 
of  the  examination  may  be  quoted : 

R.  Johnson.  I  stand  here  indited  for  three  points,  the  first 
is,  that  I  have  not  repeated  the  words  of  the  institution,  or 
as  they  commonly  say,  I  have  not  consecrated  the  wine  when 

1  Otherwise  Reginald  Wolf,  a  public  reader  in  divinity  at  Berne. 


200  THE  SECOND  PRAYER  BOOK  [ch. 

I  delivered  it  to  the  communicants. ...For  the  first  I  answer 
under  protestation  that  at  no  time  in  the  celebrating  of  the 
communion  have  I  omitted  any  prayer  or  words  of  institution 
which  the  order  of  the  Book  prescribeth,  but  have  used  them 
in  as  full  and  ample  manner  as  they  are  appointed,  but  some 
times  upon  occasion  when  wine  failed  I  sent  for  more  which 
I  delivered  to  the  people  with  the  words  appointed  in  the  Book 
to  be  said  at  the  delivery  of  the  sacrament,  not  again  repeating 
the  words  of  institution,  partly  for  that  it  being  one  entire 
action  and  one  supper,  the  words  of  institution  afore  spoken 
were  sufficient  as  I  do  take  it,  and  partly  for  that  in  the  Book 
of  Common  Prayer  there  is  no  such  order  appointed,  unto  the 
which  in  this  case  I  do  refer  myself. 

***** 

R.  Johnson.  I  pray  you  tell  me  one  thing,  whether  be  the 
words  of  institution  spoken  for  the  bread  or  for  the  receivers. 

Dean  of  Westminster.   For  both. 

R.  Johnson.  I  deny  that,  for  the  evangelist  doth  testify  that 
Christ  "said  to  his  disciples,"  to  teach  them  to  what  end  and 
use  they  should  take  the  bread. 

***** 

Master  Garrard.  Johnson,  you  confess  in  a  manner  as  much 
as  you  are  burdened  with,  for  you  confess  that  when  the  words 
of  institution  were  recited  you  had  no  wine. 

R.  Johnson.  I  do  not  confess  that,  for  I  had  both  bread  and 
wine. 

Master  Garrard.  But  you  had  not  that  wine. 

R.  Johnson.    No. 

Master  Garrard.  Therefore  it  was  not  consecrated. 

R.  Johnson.  The  words  afore  were  sufficient  for  the  conse- 
cration. 

Dean  of  Westminster.  Then  with  those  words  you  consecrated 
all  the  wine  in  the  tavern. 

R.  Johnson.  No  sir.  For  the  wine  that  was  in  the  tavern 
was  brought  to  the  church,  and  of  a  common  wine  was  ap- 
pointed to  be  a  sacramental  wine,  to  represent  Christ's  blood, 
and  this  is  consecration. 


xi]     AND  THE  ELIZABETHAN  SETTLEMENT    201 

Dean  of  Westminster.  Why  then  the  word  is  of  no  force 
with  you. 

R.  Johnson.  No,  not  of  force  to  bring  any  holiness  to  the 
sacrament.  I  trust  you  do  not  think  that  the  word  maketh 
the  bread  the  holier  when  it  is  a  sacrament. 

Doctor  Wylson.   Yes,  it  is  sacer  pants. 

Bishop  of  London.  It  is  sacer  panis,  a  holy  sacrament;  for 
the  sacrament  is  holy. 

R.  Johnson.  That  I  confess,  but  that  holiness  is  in  the  use 
and  end  and  not  in  the  substance :  for  otherwise  you  shall  make 
a  magical  incantation  and  not  a  consecration.  Master  Cranmer 
in  his  book  of  the  sacrament  saith  that  there  cometh  no  holiness 
to  the  bread  by  consecration1'2. 

^It  is  plain  that  his  views  were  identical  with  those  of 
Cranmer,  Bucer  and  Peter  Martyr,  in  accordance  with 
which  the  Prayer  Book  had  been  revised.  The  letter  of 
the  Prayer  Book  was  also  on  his  side,  for  there  was  no 
direction  to  repeat  the  words  of  institution  when  the 
bread  or  wine  failed,  Peter  Martyr,  indeed,  having  ob- 
jected strongly  to  this  very  thing,  and  interpreted  the 
words  of  institution  as  said  for  the  edification  of  the  com- 
municants. Yet  he  was  found  guilty  and  condemned  to  a 
year's  imprisonment  in  the  Gatehouse  at  Westminster — 
though  he  died  before  he  had  completed  the  sentence. 
Clearly  the  opinions  of  his  judges,  some  of  them  dignitaries 
of  the  church,  were  very  different  from  those  of  the  men 
who  in  1552  had  caused  the  alterations  in  the  Prayer  Book 
and  made  it  what  it  was.  The  views  of  the  revisers  were 
not  considered  as  necessarily  binding  on  the  church  in 
1573,  nor  as  conclusive  with  regard  to  the  interpretation 
of  the  Book. 

To  make  quite  plain  what  was  the  intention  of  the 
church  in  the  matter  of  a  second  consecration,  an  order 

1  See  p.  i9r. 

2  A  Parte  of  a  Register,  pp.  105-9. 


202  THE  SECOND  PRAYER  BOOK        [ch.xi 

was  included  among  the  canons  of  1604.   In  Canon  21  we 
read: 

No  bread  or  wine  newly  brought  shall  be  used;  but  first  the 
words  of  institution  shall  be  rehearsed,  when  the  said  bread  and 
wine  be  present  upon  the  communion  table1. 

This  direction  was  considered  of  such  importance  as  to 
be  repeated  in  numerous  episcopal  injunctions  for  many 
years,  making  it  quite  plain  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
extreme  reformers  had  been  definitely  rejected. 

1  Canons  and  Constitutions,  S.P.C.K.  p.  13. 


CHAPTER  XII 

THE  SCOTTISH  PRAYER  BOOK  AND  THE 
PRAYER  BOOK  OF  1661 

FOR  the  next  stage  in  the  development  of  the  rubric 
of  the  English  Prayer  Book  dealing  with  the  disposal 
of  the  remains  at  holy  communion  we  must  go  to  Scotland. 
In  a  Lasco's  liturgy  for  the  Strangers'  Church  in  Austin 
Friars  we  noticed  the  provision : 

And  the  deacons  at  the  doors  of  the  temple  collect  the  alms  for 
the  poor;  and  the  remnants  of  the  bread  and  wine,  which  were 
left  over  from  the  use  of  the  supper,  they  bestow  on  the  poor 
of  the  church  as  each  one  has  need,  especially  if  there  are  any 
who  are  infirm  or  aged1. 

What  is  intended  is  clearly  that  the  remnants  should  be 
taken  out  of  the  church  for  use  at  home. 

In  the  sixth  of  the  reforming  canons  of  1636  for  the 
church  of  Scotland  we  read : 

In  the  ministration  he  (the  priest)  shall  have  care  that  the 
elements  are  circumspectly  handled;  and  what  is  reserved 
thereof  be  distributed  to  the  poorer  sort,  which  receive  that 
day;  to  be  eaten  and  drunken  by  them  before  they  go  out  of 
the  church2. 

What  is  forbidden  here  is  the  practice  which  was  pre- 
scribed in  a  Lasco's  service,  and  which  was  probably  the 
common  practice  among  the  Calvinists  in  Scotland,  the 
carrying  away  of  the  remains  for  consumption  at  home. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  about  the  time  and  place  where  the 
remains  of  the  sacrament  not  required  for  communion  are 
o  be  consumed,  and  that  it  is  to  be  neither  immediately 

1  See  p.  196.   Forma  ac  Ratio,  p.  269. 

2  Prayer  Booh  Dictionary,  p.  611. 


204  THE  SCOTTISH  PRAYER  BOOK  [ch. 

after  the  communion  nor  at  home,  but  at  the  end  of  the 
service  in  church.  The  rule  is  akin  to  that  of  the  synod  of 
Constantinople  which  we  have  quoted1,  and  as  this  was 
known  to  and  cited  as  authoritative  by  English  divines, 
such  as  Anthony  Sparrow2,  a  little  later,  it  probably  sug- 
gested the  wording.    The  decree  reads : 

The  fragments  of  the  consecrated  oblation  they  ought  not 
to  eat  save  only  in  the  church,  until  they  have  consumed 
everything3. 

For  the  consumption  of  the  remains  by  the  laity  there 
was  some  mediaeval  precedent  in  Britain  as  we  saw  in  the 
decree  of  the  council  of  Durham  in  1220 4,  but  the  com- 
moner practice,  when  not  used  for  communion  another 
day,  was  to  limit  it  to  the  clergy,  following  the  directions 
of  the  pseudo  Clement. 

In  the  ill-fated  Scottish  Prayer  Book  of  1637,  authorised 
by  the  canons  of  1636  before  it  was  actually  published  and 
having  the  personal  approval  of  Charles  I,  the  rubric  of 
the  Second  English  Prayer  Book  with  reference  to  the 
disposal  of  the  remains  is  clearly,  and  of  course  correctly 
from  a  historical  point  of  view,  interpreted  as  applying 
to  the  consecrated  elements,  though  the  priest  is  no 
longer  to  have  them  to  his  own  use,  for  the  rubric  is  com- 
bined with  the  canon.   We  read: 

And  if  any  of  the  bread  and  wine  remain,  which  is  conse- 
crated, it  shall  be  reverently  eaten  and  drunk  by  such  of  the 
communicants  only  as  the  presbyter  which  celebrates  shall 
take  unto  him,  but  it  shall  not  be  carried  out  of  the  church. 
And  to  the  end  there  may  be  little  left,  he  that  officiates  is 
required  to  consecrate  with  the  least,  and  then  if  there  be 
want  the  words  of  consecration  may  be  repeated  again  over 
more  either  bread  or  wine5. 

1  See  p.  10.  2  See  p.  211. 

8  P.G.  cxxxviii.  col.  944.  *  See  pp.  114-5. 

5  Dowden,  Annotated  Scottish  Communion  Office,  pp.  256-7.  Hall, 
Reliquiae  Liturgicae,  vol.  II.  p.  157. 


xii]         AND  THE  PRAYER  BOOK  OF  1661  205 

As  the  canon  and  prayer  book  were  connected  docu- 
ments, and  parts  of  the  same  reforming  effort,  one  may 
plainly  be  taken  as  explanatory  of  the  other.  That  it  was 
only  the  communicants  who  were  invited  who  were  to 
consume  the  remains,  and  that  they  were  to  do  it  in  church 
is  clear  from  both,  but  a  comparison  shows  also  that  "it 
shall  not  be  carried  out  of  the  church"  refers,  not  to  any- 
thing which  the  priest  might  do,  but  to  a  possible  carrying 
of  the  consecrated  elements  home  by  those  to  whom  they 
were  given  in  accordance  with  the  Calvinistic  custom. 
We  may  notice  also  that  the  phrase  is  almost  identical 
with  the  similar  order  about  unconsecrated  hosts  at  the 
council  of  Clermont  in  1268 — "let  them. .  .not  carry  them 
out  of  the  church1." 

The  Prayer  Book  contains  also  a  rubric  quite  in  accord- 
ance with  traditional  usage  both  in  East  and  West  with 
regard  to  the  treatment  of  the  sacrament  while  on  the 
altar: 

When  all  have  communicated,  he  that  celebrates  shall  go  to 
the  Lord's  table,  and  cover  with  a  fair  linen  cloth,  or  corporal, 
that  which  remaineth  of  the  consecrated  elements2. 

To  speak  strictly  of  course  in  the  case  of  the  chalice  it 
could  never  happen  that  none  would  remain,  a  point 
made  clear  for  example  in  a  manuscript  of  the  Hereford 
missal,  where  after  the  priest  has  communicated  and 
consumed  the  remains  but  before  he  makes  the  ablution, 
we  yet  read  "let  him  sign  himself  with  the  blood3."  The 
rubric,  however,  seems  to  refer  to  something  much  more 
definite  than  this,  and  if  we  are  to  interpret  it  strictly  it 
requires  that  there  should  always  be  some  of  the  con- 
secrated elements  left,  thus  agreeing  with  the  primitive 
practice  which  found  expression  in  the  ancient  Roman 
rule  which  ordered  a  portion  of  the  eucharist  to  remain 

1  See  p.  35. 

2  Dowden,  p.  253.    Hall,  vol.  II.  p.  152. 

3  Seep.  162.    Henderson,  p.  134.    Perhaps  in  origin  a  displacement. 


206  THE  SCOTTISH  PRAYER  BOOK  [ch. 

on  the  altar  until  the  end  of  mass,  so  that,  to  quote  the 
Gallican  explanation  of  the  custom,  while  the  celebration 
was  in  progress  the  altar  should  never  be  without  the 
sacrament1,  though  in  accordance  with  the  other  Scottish 
rubric  it  should  be  little. 

We  may  notice  how  closely  the  rubric  agrees  both  with 
the  direction  of  the  letter  of  the  pseudo  Clement,  according 
to  the  usual  translation,  and  also  with  the  words  of  the 
synod  of  Constantinople: 

But  if  any  (hosts)  remain,  let  them  not  be  reserved  until  the 
morrow,  but  be  carefully  consumed  by  the  clerks  with  fear 
and  trembling2. 

The  fragments  of  the  consecrated  oblation  they  ought  not 
to  eat  save  only  in  the  church,  until  they  have  consumed 
everything3. 

The  similarity  is  hardly  accidental. 

The  later  official  interpretation  of  the  rubric  "If  any 
remain"  of  the  Second  Prayer  Book,  which  in  England 
was  left  unaltered  until  the  last  revision  in  1661,  was  that 
it  referred  to  the  unconsecrated  elements.  Though  this 
was  as  we  have  seen  historically  incorrect,  the  original 
reference  being  to  any  remains  whether  consecrated  or 
unconsecrated,  those  responsible  for  the  Second  Prayer 
Book  recognising  no  real  difference  between  them,  yet  in 
view  of  the  fact  that  the  extreme  ideas  of  the  revisers  had 
been  officially  repudiated  and  expression  of  the  change 
has  been  inserted  in  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  in  the 
words  of  administration,  it  was  perhaps  a  legitimate  inter- 
pretation, and  was  necessary  unless  the  doctrine  of  the 
book  was  to  be  self-contradictory.  It  is  not  surprising, 
however,  that  ultimately,  to  take  away  all  excuse  for  pro- 
fanity, the  wording  should  be  altered. 

Cosin  in  his  First  Series  of  Notes  on  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer,  contained  in  a  Prayer  Book  printed  in  1619,  says: 

1  See  p.  63.    Mabillon,  II.  p.  14.  2  P.G.  1.  col.  484.    See  p.  12. 

3  P.G.  cxxxvm.  col.  944.    See  p.  10. 


xii]         AND  THE  PRAYER  BOOK  OF  1661         207 

And  if  any  of  the  bread  and  wine  remain,  etc.  Which  is  not 
to  be  understood  of  the  bread  and  wine  already  consecrated, 
but  of  that  which  remains  without  consecration;  for  else  it 
were  but  a  profanation  of  the  holy  sacrament  to  let  the  curate 
have  it  home  to  his  own  use.  How  unworthily  they  act  who 
misuse  this  rubric  to  excuse  so  great  a  crime  they  themselves 
should  see.  It  was  Nestorianism  once  to  think  that  the  conse- 
crated bread,  if  it  were  kept  "  till  the  morrow  "  became  common 
bread  again,  if  St  Thomas.,  .quoteth  St  Cyril  of  Alexandria  right 
(Ep.  ad  Calos.) . .  .There  was  order  taken  for  it  of  old  in  the  church, 
which  were  well  to  be  observed  still,  that  no  more  should  be 
brought,  at  least  consecrated  upon  the  altar,  than  would 
suffice  to  communicate  the  people,  and  if  any  remained,  that 
the  priests  should  reverently  receive  it.  "  Let  so  many  hosts  be 
offered  on  the  altar  as  ought  to  suffice  for  the  people.  Let  not 
that  which  remains  (of  course  from  the  hosts  and  consecrated 
elements)  be  kept  until  the  morrow,  but  with  fear  and  trembling 
be  consumed  with  carefulness  by  the  clerks"  [Clem.  P.P.  Ep.  II.)1. 

We  notice  that  he  founds  his  suggestion  on  the  letter 
of  the  pseudo  Clement  according  to  the  usual  translation. 
Though  he  makes  the  quotation  in  Latin  he  gives  it  very 
freely.   In  the  same  series  of  notes  we  read  again : 

To  his  own  use.  We  read  in  Clemens  that  after  the  communion 
was  done  the  deacon  took  up  that  which  was  left  and  carried  it 
into  the  Pastophorinm,  the  room  where  the  priests  were  lodged. 
In  Origen  that  it  was  not  kept  till  the  next  day.  In  St  Jerome 
that  after  the  communion  they  that  had  eaten  it  in  the  church 
spent  all  that  remained  of  the  oblations.  In  Hesychius  that 
after  the  example  of  the  old  law,  all  that  was  left  was  cast  into 
the  fire.  In  Evagrius  that  it  was  an  ancient  custom  at  Con- 
stantinople, that  if  any  of  the  sacrament  remained,  young 
children  were  called  from  the  school  to  eat  it  up:  which  was 
retained  in  France  as  in  the  councils  of  Macon  and  Tours,  held 
under  Charlemagne2. 

1  Parts  of  this  and  the  following  extract  which  are  given  by  Cosin  in 
Latin,  are  here  translated.   Works,  vol.  v.  pp.  130-1.  See  pp.  6,  7,  11-13. 

2  Works,  vol.  v.  p.  132.   For  references  see  pp.  6,  7,  9,  35. 


208  THE  SCOTTISH  PRAYER  BOOK  [ch. 

We  notice  that  he  falls  into  the  same  mistake  as  Becon 
and  Jewel,  and  interprets  what  the  pseudo  Jerome  says, 
not  of  the  unconsecrated  elements,  as  it  should  be,  but  of 
the  consecrated. 

In  Cosin's  Second  Series  of  Notes  to  be  found  in  a 
Prayer  Book  printed  in  1638  we  read : 

And  if  any  of  the  bread  and  wine  remain,  etc.  Which  is  to  be 
understood  of  that  bread  and  wine,  that  the  churchwardens 
provided,  and  carried  into  the  vestry,  not  of  that  which  the 
priest  consecrated  for  the  sacrament :  for  of  this,  if  he  be  care- 
ful, as  he  ought  to  be,  to  consecrate  no  more  than  will  suffice 
to  be  distributed  unto  the  communicants  none  will  remain1. 

This  was  written  we  may  note  before  the  present  rubric 
was  added,  which  like  its  Scottish  parent  assumes  that 
some  of  the  sacrament  will  always  remain,  and  in  accord- 
ance with  ancient  custom  be  on  the  altar  until  the  end  of 
the  service. 

A  note  written  at  some  later  time  in  the  margin  records 
a  possible  criticism: 

Yet  if  for  lack  of  care  they  consecrate  more  than  they 
distribute,  why  may  not  the  curates  have  it  to  their  own  use, 
as  well  as  be  given  to  children  (Concil.  Matisc.  II),  or  be  burnt 
in  the  fire  (Isych.  In  Levitic),  for  though  the  bread  and  the 
wine  remain,  yet  the  consecration,  the  sacrament  of  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ,  do  not  remain  longer  than  the  holy  action 
itself  remains  for  which  the  bread  and  wine  were  hallowed; 
and  which  being  ended,  return  to  their  former  use  again2. 

This  question  can  hardly  be  Cosin's  own,  for  it  directly 
contradicts  his  usual  teaching  and  particularly  what  we 
find  in  the  First  Series  of  Notes,  and  agrees  with  the  doc- 
trine of  the  more  extreme  reformers  which  had  inspired 
the  alterations  to  be  found  in  the  Second  Prayer  Book, 
including  the  rubric  which  Cosin  is  so  careful  to  explain 

1  Works,  vol.  v.  p.  356. 

2  Works,  vol.  v.  pp.  356-7.   For  references  see  p.  9  as  above. 


XII]  AND  THE  PRAYER  BOOK  OF  1661       209 

in  accordance  with  the  changed  views  upon  the  sacrament 
which  had  been  adopted  under  the  Elizabethan  settle- 
ment, and  in  a  sense  other  than  the  original. 

Another  note  of  the  Second  Series  is  a  comment  upon 
the  rubric  as  referring  to  the  unconsecrated,  not  the  con- 
secrated elements.   We  read : 

The  curate  shall  have  it  to  his  own  use.  It  was  the  ancient 
manner  of  the  church  to  offer  a  good  quantity  of  bread  and 
wine  (every  one  of  the  people  some)  for  use  as  well  of  the 
minister  and  priest,  as  for  the  poor,  and  the  preparation  of 
the  sacrament1. 

In  his  Third  Series  of  Notes  arguing  for  his  usual 
explanation  of  the  rubric  Cosin  again  confuses  the  uncon- 
secrated with  the  consecrated  elements.   He  says: 

And  if  any  of  the  bread  and  wine  remain  the  curate,  etc.  Which 
needeth  not  be  understood  of  that  bread  and  wine  which  was 
blessed  and  consecrated,  but  of  that  which  was  brought  to  the 
church,  and  not  used  for  the  sacrament.  And  vet  we  read  of 
some  such  thing  in  the  Constitutions  of  the  Apostles,  Lib.  viii. 
c.  31.  "  Let  the  deacons  distribute  the  remains  of  the  blessings 
at  the  mysteries  to  the  clergy  according  to  the  mind  of  the 
bishop  or  presbyters.  To  the  bishop,  four  parts;  to  a  presbyter, 
three;  to  a  deacon,  two;  to  the  rest,  subdeacons,  readers, 
singers,  or  deaconesses,  one  part2." 

In  another  collection  of  Cosin's  entitled  "Particulars  to 
be  considered,  explained  and  corrected  in  the  Book  of 
Common  Prayer,"  written  in  all  probability  as  early  as 
the  days  of  Charles  I  for  the  most  part,  and  now  bound 
up  with  the  1619  Prayer  Book  which  contains  the  First 
Series  of  Notes,  we  get  further  observations  on  the  matter. 
We  read: 

It  is  likewise  here  ordered,  that  if  any  of  the  bread  and  wine 
remain,  the  curate  shall  have  it  to  his  own  use.  Which  words 
some  curates  have  abused  and  extended  so  far,  that  they 

1  Works,  vol.  v.  p.  357.  2  Works,  vol.  v.  p.  481. 

L.  E.  I4 


210  THE  SCOTTISH  PRAYER  BOOK  [ch. 

suppose  they  may  take  all  that  remains  of  the  consecrated 
bread  and  wine  itself,  home  to  their  houses,  and  there  eat  and 
drink  the  same  with  their  other  common  meats;  at  least  the 
Roman  Catholics  take  occasion  hereby  to  lay  this  negligence 
and  calumny  upon  the  Church  of  England ;  whereas  the  rubric 
only  intends  it  of  such  bread  and  wine  as  remains  unconse- 
crate  of  that  which  was  provided  for  the  parish  (as  appeareth 
by  the  articles  of  enquiry  hereabouts  in  the  visitations  of 
divers  bishops).  And  therefore  for  the  better  clearing  of  this 
particular,  some  words  are  needful  here  to  be  added,  whereby 
the  priest  may  be  enjoined  to  consider  the  number  of  them  which 
are  to  receive  the  sacrament,  and  to  consecrate  the  bread  and 
wine  in  such  a  near  proportion  as  shall  be  sufficient  for  them ; 
but  if  any  of  the  consecrated  elements  be  left,  that  he  and 
some  others  with  him  shall  decently  eat  and  drink  them  in  the 
church  before  all  the  people  depart  from  it1. 

This  consideration  evidently  suggested  the  restoration 
of  the  rubric  at  the  offertory  requiring  the  priest  then  to 
place  upon  the  table  "so  much  bread  and  wine  as  he  shall 
think  sufficient,"  likewise  influencing  the  alteration  of 
the  rubric  about  the  consumption  of  the  remains.  Though 
at  first  sight  it  might  seem  to  be  the  meaning  intended,  as 
a  matter  of  fact  there  appear  to  be  no  episcopal  articles 
before  this  date  which  deal  with  the  rubric  concerning 
what  remains  of  the  bread  and  wine,  and  the  reference  is 
only  to  their  provision  by  the  churchwardens,  as  men- 
tioned also  in  the  Second  Series  of  Notes.  Many  bishops 
had  put  out  enquiries  of  this  kind  in  words  based  on 
Canon  20  of  1604 2.  As  a  specimen  we  may  give  the  earliest, 
that  of  Bancroft,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  in  1605  : 

Whether  the  churchwardens  do  provide  against  every  com- 
munion with  the  advice  of  the  minister  a  sufficient  quantity 
of  fine  white  bread,  and  of  good  and  wholesome  wine  for  the 
number  of  the  communicants  that  shall  receive,  and  that  to 

1  Works,  vol.  v.  p.  519. 

2  Canons  and  Constitutions,  S.P.C.K.  p.  12. 


xii]         AND  THE  PRAYER  BOOK  OF  1661         211 

be  brought  in  a  clean  and  sweet  standing  pot  of  pewter,  or  of 
other  pure  metal1? 

Anthony  Sparrow,  who  was  concerned  with  the  revision 
of  1661,  takes  the  same  line  as  Cosin  with  regard  to  the 
interpretation  of  the  rubric,  and  in  his  Rationale  upon  the 
Book  of  Common  Prayer,  published  in  1657,  we  read : 

If  any  of  the  bread  and  wine  remain  the  curate  shall  have  it  to 
his  own  use.  That  is  if  it  were  not  consecrated;  for  if  it  be 
consecrated,  it  is  all  to  be  spent  with  fear  and  reverence  by  the 
communicants,  in  the  church2. 

He  adds  references  to  the  letter  of  the  pseudo  Clement 
as  given  by  Gratian3,  to  the  fifth  answer  of  the  synod  of 
Constantinople  to  the  questions  of  the  monks,  as  given  by 
Balsamon4,  and  also  to  the  seventh  canon  of  Theophilus 
of  Alexandria,  though  this  as  we  saw  is  concerned  really 
with  the  unconsecrated  elements5. 

Among  the  criticisms  and  suggestions  with  regard  to 
the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  compiled  by  Bishop  Wren, 
who  was  one  of  the  revisers  of  1661,  evidently  with  a  view 
to  this  work,  being  drawn  up  just  before,  apparently  in 
1660,  we  find  one  very  similar  to  those  of  Cosin: 

What  remaineth  of  the  bread  of  any  loaf  or  wafer  that  was 
broken  for  the  use  of  the  communion,  or  of  the  wine  that  was 
poured  out  or  had  benediction,  the  curate  shall  after  the 
service  is  ended  take  some  of  the  communicants  to  him  there 
to  eat  and  drink  the  same.  But  all  the  rest  in  both  kinds  the 
curate  shall  have  to  his  own  use.  As  this  was  set  down  before 
much  outcry  was  made  against  it6. 

Public  opinion  in  the  church  being  opposed  to  the 
original  intention  of  the  rubric,  and  the  authorities  being 
unanimous  in  explaining  it  otherwise  and  in  accordance 

1  See  App.  to  Second  Report  of  Ritual  Commission,  1868,  p.  450  etc. 

2  Sparrow,  Rationale.    Ed.  Downes,  1722,  p.  180. 

3  Pars  in.  De  Consec.  Dist.  11.  c.  23.   P.L.  clxxxvii.  col.  1740. 

i  P.G.  cxxxviii.  col.  944.  5  See  pp.  10,  n.    Cf.  p.  209. 

6  Wren,  Fragmentary  Illustrations,  pp.  84-5. 

14 — 2 


212  THE  SCOTTISH  PRAYER  BOOK  [ch. 

with  the  traditional  confession  of  faith  in  the  sacrament 
added  to  the  words  of  administration  under  the  Eliza- 
bethan settlement,  it  was  clear  that  there  would  be  some 
modification  or  explanation  which  would  make  the  in- 
tention beyond  dispute,  and  that  henceforth  at  any  rate 
only  the  remains  of  what  had  not  been  consecrated 
should  be  taken  out  of  church  for  consumption  at  home. 
In  what  is  called  the  "Durham  Book,"  which  is  a  Prayer 
Book  of  date  1619,  into  which  the  bishops  had  entered 
such  alterations  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  as  they 
decided  upon  at  their  meetings  after  the  adjournment  of 
convocation  on  July  31,  1661,  we  read  the  following  first 
authoritative  draft  of  the  new  rubric  dealing  with  the 
matter: 

If  any  of  the  bread  (and)  or  wine  remain  unconsecrated  the 
curate  shall  have  it  to  his  own  use.  And  if  any  remain  that  was 
consecrate  it  shall  not  be  carried  out  of  the  church,  but  the 
priest  and  such  other  of  the  communicants  as  he  shall  then 
call  unto  him  before  the  Lord's  table  shall  there  immediately 
after  the  blessing  reverently  eat  and  drink  the  same1. 

The  rule  is  clearly  based  on  the  rubric  of  the  Scottish 
Prayer  Book,  as  that  is  on  the  Second  Prayer  Book  and 
the  canon  of  1636.  The  word  "there"  brings  out  the  point 
that  it  is  the  historical  interpretation  of  the  words  "it 
shall  not  be  carried  out  of  the  church,"  which  is  still 
intended,  and  what  is  forbidden  is  the  carrying  awTay  of 
the  remains  by  those  to  whom  they  have  been  given  for 
consumption  at  home.  It  is  "before  the  Lord's  table" 
that  the  remains  are  to  be  distributed  and  it  is  "there" 
likewise  that  they  are  to  be  consumed. 

In  Sancroft's  Fair  Copy  of  the  Durham  Book,  which 
was  made  in  a  Prayer  Book  of  1634,  there  is  no  change 
save  that  the  original  reading  of  the  Second  Prayer  Book, 
"bread  or  wine,"  is  the  one  adopted.    It  was  the  other 

1  Parker,  An  Introduction  to  the  History  of  the  Successive  Revisions  of 
the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  p.  ccxxxiii. 


xii]         AND  THE  PRAYER  BOOK  OF  1661         213 

reading,  however,  "bread  and  wine,"  which  finally  passed 
the  Houses  of  Convocation  and  received  Parliamentary- 
sanction,  and  is  authoritative  to-day.  The  rubric  now 
reads : 

And  if  any  of  the  bread  and  wine  remain  unconsecrated,  the 
curate  shall  have  it  to  his  own  use:  but  if  any  remain  of  that 
which  was  consecrated,  it  shall  not  be  carried  out  of  the  church, 
but  the  priest  and  such  other  of  the  communicants  as  he  shall 
then  call  unto  him,  shall,  immediately  after  the  blessing,  rever- 
ently eat  and  drink  the  same. 

We  notice  that  there  have  been  several  alterations 
from  the  Durham  Book,  and  both  the  words  "before  the 
Lord's  table"  and  "there"  have  disappeared,  and  with 
the  latter  the  last  specific  link  with  the  historical  interpre- 
tation, and  the  reason  for  the  preceding  prohibition.  The 
rubric,  however,  is  still  concerned  only  with  the  disposal 
of  the  remains,  whether  unconsecrated  or  consecrated, 
and  the  change  from  "and"  to  "but"  at  the  beginning 
of  the  direction  with  regard  to  the  latter  makes  the  idea 
of  contrast  stronger,  so  that  still  the  carrying  out  of  the 
church  which  is  forbidden  is  one  comparable  with  that 
which  is  included  in  the  notion  of  the  curate  having  the 
unconsecrated  elements  to  his  own  use,  and  its  aim,  as 
we  see  from  the  intentions  of  the  revisers  Cosin,  Sparrow, 
and  Wren,  and  the  whole  previous  discussion  which  led 
up  to  the  change,  was  to  prevent  a  similar  treatment  of 
the  consecrated  elements.  The  alteration  has,  however, 
opened  the  way  for  the  common  interpretation  according 
to  which  not  only  the  carrying  away  of  the  remains  for 
consumption  at  home,  but  also  any  taking  of  the  sacra- 
ment out  of  church  for  purposes  of  communion  is  forbidden. 
If  this  be  so  it  is  only  an  unforeseen  result  of  the  new 
wording,  for  the  point  was  never  alluded  to  in  all  the  dis- 
cussion which  resulted  in  the  order  so  far  as  it  has  come 
down  to  us. 


214  THE  SCOTTISH  PRAYER  BOOK  [ch. 

From  the  Scottish  liturgy  another  rubric,  agreeing  as 
we  noticed  with  the  traditional  practice  of  both  East  and 
West,  when  the  blessed  sacrament  is  on  the  altar,  took 
its  origin  in  1661 : 

When  all  have  communicated,  the  minister  shall  return  to 
the  Lord's  table,  and  reverently  place  upon  it  what  remaineth 
of  the  consecrated  elements,  covering  the  same  with  a  fair 
linen  cloth. 

As  in  the  Scottish  Prayer  Book  the  rubric  is  not  con- 
ditional, but  it  assumes  that  something  will  always  remain, 
and  so  it  is  not  sufficient  to  regard  it  as  providing  for  the 
treatment  of  a  chance  surplus.  It  is  a  definite  order 
intended  to  apply  to  all  occasions,  and  so  is  comparable 
with  the  ancient  rule  of  the  First  Roman  Ordo  which 
required  the  sacrament  to  remain  on  the  altar  until  the 
end  of  mass1. 

We  may  note  that  we  have  met  with  no  evidence  in 
any  post-Reformation  English  authority  for  the  consump- 
tion of  the  remains  of  the  sacrament  not  required  for 
communion  before  the  close  of  the  service,  and  that 
according  to  all  rubrics  or  suggested  rubrics  dealing  with 
the  matter  this  is  to  be  done  after  the  benediction.  It  is 
probable  that  this  was  intended,  as  we  saw,  under  the 
First  Prayer  Book,  but  in  all  editions  of  the  Prayer  Book 
since  it  has  been  quite  plainly  ordered,  even  if  in  such  a 
way  as  to  allow  scope  for  irreverence,  and  the  sacrament 
has  remained  on  the  altar  according  to  ancient  custom 
until  the  end  of  the  liturgy.  There  was  thus  a  deliberate 
break  with  the  later  mediaeval  practice  and  a  return  to  the 
primitive  usage  of  both  East  and  West,  still  retained  to 
some  extent  in  the  East,  but  gradually  modified  as  we 
saw  in  the  West,  so  that  the  present  custom  apart  from 
the  occasions  when  the  sacrament  to  be  reserved  remains 
on  the  altar  until  the  end  of  mass  is  entirely  different. 

1  See  p.  63.   Mabillon,  11.  p.  14. 


xii]         AND  THE  PRAYER  BOOK  OF  1661  215 

No  idea  of  any  ceremonial  ablution  of  the  chalice  seems 
to  have  entered  the  minds  of  the  Anglican  divines  of  the 
seventeenth  century,  though  they  adopted  various  cere- 
monial practices  unknown  to  the  rubrics  of  the  Book  of 
Common  Prayer.  Under  the  First  Prayer  Book  the  ablu- 
tions were  made  more  or  less  in  accordance  with  traditional 
practice  though  probably,  as  we  saw,  at  any  rate  on  some 
occasions,  at  a  different  time,  and  it  was  the  same  also  in 
the  days  of  Elizabeth,  if  we  may  judge  by  the  numerous 
complaints  of  bishops  and  others  about  the  imitation  of 
the  Popish  mass,  but  the  practice  seems  to  have  died  out 
until  it  was  revived  in  the  nineteenth  century.  As  the 
universal  custom  from  the  seventeenth  to  the  nineteenth 
century  was  for  the  remains  of  the  sacrament  to  be 
consumed  after  the  benediction,  it  is  clear  that  there 
could  have  been  no  cleansing  of  the  vessels  before,  and 
therefore  there  was  a  return  to  the  earliest  practice  in 
England  as  in  the  rest  of  the  West  and  elsewhere,  such  as 
we  find  in  the  Admonition  of  the  pseudo  Leo,  by  which 
they  were  washed  in  the  vestry  after  the  service. 

Before  concluding  this  part  of  our  discussion  it  may  be 
well  to  quote  the  judgment  of  the  Archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury in  the  Bishop  of  Lincoln's  case  in  1890  on  the  ques- 
tion of  the  ablutions,  though  its  authority  is  not  every- 
where recognised  and  not  unchallenged  on  canonical 
grounds.   We  read : 

The  cleansing  of  the  vessels  appears  to  be  not  an  improper 
completion  of  this  act  which  is  ordered  to  follow  the  close  of 
the  service  without  any  break  or  interval.... The  rubric  gives 
a  general  direction  as  to  what  is  to  be  done  in  the  way  of 
consuming  what  remains  after  the  service,  and  is  not  so  minute 
as  to  go  beyond  this,  our  book  having  abandoned  many  over- 
niceties  of  regulation.  If  a  conscientious  scruple  is  felt  as  to  not 
"carrying  out  of  the  church"  slight  remnants  even  into  the 
vestry,  it  is  not  the  duty  of  this  court  to  over-rule  it,  and  the 
credence  is  a  suitable  place  for  completing  the  consumption. 


2i6  THE  SCOTTISH  PRAYER  BOOK       [ch.  xii 

In  ancient  liturgies,  which  cannot  be  held  to  fail  in  punctilious 
reverence,  after  the  words  of  dismissal  the  minister  goes  into 
the  prothesis  (the  wide  apse  where  the  credence  is)  and  there 
consumes  the  last  remnants  (see  Goar,  Euch.,  p.  86 *) .  In  neither 
of  those  liturgies  [copies  of  the  liturgy  of  St  Chrysostom]  which 
were  in  Cranmer's  hands  and  used  by  him  (as  we  have  seen) 
are  any  directions  given.   If  it  were  the  duty  of  this  court  to 
point  out  where  and  when,  if  not  at  the  Holy  Table,  the 
minister  would  most  properly  complete  the  consumption  of 
the  consecrated  elements  in  such  a  way  as  he  might  think 
to  be  necessary  in  compliance  with  the  rubric,  the  court  would 
unhesitatingly  say  "at  the  credence,  or  in  the  place  where 
they  had  been  prepared."   Nevertheless  the  court  cannot  hold 
that  the  minister,  who,  after  the  service  was  ended  and  the 
benediction  given,  in  order  that  no  part  of  the  consecrated 
elements  should  be  carried  out  of  the  church,  cleansed  the 
vessels  of  all  remnants  in  a  reverent  way  without  ceremony 
or  prayers  before  finally  leaving  the  Holy  Table,  would  have 
subjected  himself  to  penal  consequences  by  so  doing2. 

1  This  should  be  p.  68.  The  error  seems  to  be  due  to  copying  without 
verification  a  reference  given  in  Scudamore's  Notitia  Eucharistica,  p. 

895- 

2  Read  and  others  v.  the  Lord  Bishop  of  Lincoln.   Judgment.    Nov.  21, 

1890,  pp.  15-17- 


CHAPTER  XIII 

THE  WORSHIP  OF  THE  LAMB 

THAT  the  intention  of  the  Prayer  Book  since  the  last 
revision  is  that  the  remains  of  the  blessed  sacrament 
after  communion  should  remain  on  the  altar  reverently- 
covered  with  a  fair  linen  cloth  until  the  end  of  the  service 
admits  of  no  doubt,  and  thus  agreement  with  ancient 
usage,  and  particularly  with  what  was  the  rule  of  the 
church  of  Rome  on  the  subject,  was  effected.  There  was 
a  still  further  return  to  ancient  ideas  with  regard  to  the 
eucharist  characterising  the  whole  revision.  In  particular 
we  may  note  the  change  in  the  Black  Rubric  which  said 
that  "no  adoration  is  intended  or  ought  to  be  done. . . 
unto  any  real  and  essential  presence  there  being  of 
Christ's  natural  flesh  and  blood,"  so  as  to  read  "any 
corporal  presence  of  Christ's  natural  flesh  and  blood." 
The  order  requiring  on  every  occasion  "what  remaineth 
of  the  consecrated  elements"  to  be  placed  on  the  altar 
immediately  after  the  administration  brought  it  about 
that,  as  St  Gregory  the  Great  had  said  in  his  letter  to 
John  of  Syracuse,  the  prayer  which  our  Redeemer  had 
composed  is  always  recited  over  His  body  and  blood1, 
though  not  before  the  communion  as  originally.  It  may 
be  well  to  enquire  what  other  influence  the  new  rubric 
had  on  the  devotion  of  the  worshippers  during  the  latter 
part  of  the  service. 

We  have  noticed  that  according  to  Zwingli's  ideas,  as 
shown  in  the  liturgy  of  Zurich,  though  he  would  not  con- 
nect our  Lord's  presence  directly  with  the  elements,  the 
concluding  portion  of  the  service  was  performed  with  a 

1  P.L.  lxxvii.  col.  956-7. 


218  THE  WORSHIP  OF  THE  LAMB  [ch. 

deep  sense  of  the  reality  of  that  presence  as  He  is  exhibited 
outwardly  in  symbolic  actions  and  inwardly  to  the  eye  of 
faith  in  the  act  of  communion,  "the  Lamb  of  God  which 
taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world,"  and  that  He  is  thus 
worshipped  in  the  sacrament  "present  by  the  contempla- 
tion of  faith."  In  later  days  the  ceremonial  commemora- 
tion of  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  became  one  of  the  chief 
features  of  a  celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper  among  the 
followers  of  Zwingli  and  Calvin,  and  in  the  broken  bread 
and  the  wine  poured  out  the  sacrifice  is  dramatically  set 
forth  for  the  edification  of  the  worshippers.  In  the  Puritan 
Prayer  Book  published  by  Waldegrave  (c.  1585)  we  read: 

During  the  which  time  [of  the  communion]  some  place  of 
the  Scriptures  is  read,  which  doth  lively  set  forth  the  death 
of  Christ,  to  the  intent  that  our  eyes  and  senses  may  not  only 
be  occupied  in  these  outward  signs  of  bread  and  wine,  which 
are  called  the  visible  word;  but  that  our  hearts  and  minds 
also  may  be  fully  fixed  in  the  contemplation  of  the  Lord's 
death,  which  is  by  this  holy  sacrament  represented1. 

The  same  words  are  found  in  the  editions  published  at 
Middleburgh  in  1586,  1587  and  1602 2.  In  The  New  Book 
of  Common  Prayer,  according  to  the  form  of  the  Kirk  of 
Scotland  issued  in  1644  after  the  troubles  which  arose 
over  the  Prayer  Book  of  1637  we  nnd  an  almost  identical 
order,  but  the  importance  attached  to  the  idea  of  the 
exhibition  of  our  Lord  and  His  death  in  the  sacrament  is 
shown  by  "the  Visible  Word"  being  printed  in  italics 
with  capital  letters3. 

It  was  as  bringing  out  the  idea  of  our  Lord's  sacrificial 
death  that  so  much  emphasis  was  laid  on  the  breaking  of 
the  bread.  In  the  Parliamentary  Directory  of  1644  we  read : 

According  to  the  holy  institution,  command,  and  example 
of  our  blessed  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  I  take  this  bread;  and 

1  Hall,  Fragmenla  Liturgica,  vol.  i.  p.  66. 

2  Hall,  Reliquiae  Liturgicae,  vol.  I.  p.  59. 

3  Hall,  F.L.  vol.  1.  p.  94. 


xin]  THE  WORSHIP  OF  THE  LAMB  219 

having  given  thanks,  I  break  it,  and  give  it  unto  you  (There 
the  minister,  who  is  also  himself  to  communicate,  is  to  break 
the  bread  and  give  it  to  the  communicants) .  Take  ye,  eat  ye, 
This  is  the  body  of  Christ,  which  is  broken  for  you,  Do  this  in 
remembrance  of  Him1. 

We  note  the  implication  that  not  all  those  present 
would  necessarily  communicate,  and  the  same  point  is 
brought  out  in  the  preliminary  exhortation,  though  there 
it  is  only  the  "ignorant,  scandalous,  profane  or  (those) 
that  live  in  any  sin  or  offence  against  their  knowledge  or 
conscience"  who  are  warned  "that  they  presume  not  to 
come  to  that  holy  table  " ;  but  no  interval  is  allowed  in 
which  they  may  withdraw. 

Important  evidence  about  the  ideas  of  the  Puritan  party 
with  regard  to  the  sacrament  is  to  be  found  in  the  liturgy 
prepared  by  Richard  Baxter  and  submitted  by  him  and 
the  other  Puritan  divines  to  the  Savoy  Conference  in 
1661.  As  Baxter  stated  that  he  had  no  quarrel  with  the 
doctrines  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  the  proposed 
liturgy  is  to  be  regarded  as  much  as  an  interpretation  of 
that  book  according  to  his  theological  ideas  as  a  substitute 
for  it.  According  to  the  Puritan  divines,  the  three  chief 
elements  in  the  ordinance  were  the  consecration,  the  com- 
memoration of  the  sacrifice,  and  the  communion.  Conse- 
quently in  their  exceptions  to  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer 
their  complaint  had  been : 

We  conceive  that  the  manner  of  the  consecrating  of  the 
elements  is  not  here  explicit  and  distinct  enough,  and  the 
minister's  breaking  of  the  bread  is  not  so  much  as  mentioned2. 

In  Baxter's  liturgy  we  see  how  the  Puritans  would  bring 
out  these  ideas.  From  their  point  of  view  a  description  of 
the  sacrament  is  as  follows: 

The  Lord's  Supper,  then,  is  an  holy  sacrament,  instituted  by 

1  Hall,  Reliquiae  Liturgicae,  vol.  Hi.  p.  57. 

2  Cardwell,  Conferences,  3rd  Ed.  p.  321. 


220  THE  WORSHIP  OF  THE  LAMB  [ch. 

Christ:  wherein  bread  and  wine,  being  first  by  consecration 
made  sacramentally,  or  representatively,  the  body  and  blood 
of  Christ,  are  used  by  breaking  and  pouring  out  to  represent 
and  commemorate  the  sacrifice  of  Christ's  body  and  blood  upon 
the  cross  once  offered  up  to  God  for  sin;  and  are  given  in  the 
name  of  Christ  unto  the  Church,  to  signify  and  solemnize  the 
renewal  of  His  holy  covenant  with  them,  and  the  giving  of 
Himself  unto  them,  to  expiate  their  sins  by  His  sacrifice,  and 
sanctify  them  further  by  His  Spirit,  and  confirm  their  right  to 
everlasting  life1. 

With  regard  to  the  consecration  we  read : 

Sanctify  these  thy  creatures  of  bread  and  wine,  which, 
according  to  thy  institution  and  command,  we  set  apart  to 
this  holy  use,  that  they  may  be  sacramentally  the  body  and 
blood  of  thy  Son  Jesus  Christ2. 

After  the  words  of  institution  which  are  not  part  of  a 
prayer  but  addressed  to  the  people  the  minister  says: 

This  bread  and  wine,  being  set  apart,  and  consecrated  to 
this  holy  use  by  God's  appointment,  are  now  no  common  bread 
and  wine,  but  sacramentally  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ3. 

The  commemoration  of  the  sacrifice,  which  follows,  is  a 
very  dramatic  feature  of  the  liturgy: 

Then  let  the  minister  take  the  bread,  and  break  it  in  the  sight 
of  the  people,  saying : 

The  body  of  Christ  was  broken  for  us,  and  offered  once  for 
all  to  sanctify  us:  behold  the  sacrificed  Lamb  of  God,  that 
taketh  away  the  sins  of  the  world. 

In  like  manner  let  him  take  the  cup,  and  pour  out  the  wine 
in  the  sight  of  the  congregation,  saying : 

We  were  redeemed  with  the  precious  blood  of  Christ,  as  of  a 
Lamb  without  blemish  and  without  spot4. 

We  note  how  the  words  agree  with  the  forms  already 
quoted  from  a  Lasco's  liturgy,  and  the  First  Prayer  Book, 

1  Hall,  Reliquiae  Liturgicae,  vol.  iv.  p.  57. 

2  R.L.  vol.  iv.  p.  68. 

3  R.L.  vol.  iv.  p.  69.  *  R.L.  vol.  iv.  p.  70. 


xni]  THE  WORSHIP  OF  THE  LAMB  221 

though  with  regard  to  the  latter,  the  draft  Articles  of 
1549,  Ridley's  Injunctions  of  1550,  and  Hooper's  similar 
Injunctions  of  1551,  forbade  "showing  the  sacrament 
openly  before  the  distribution1."  They  are  also  very 
similar  to  the  words  of  the  Roman  missal  when  the  priest 
turns  towards  the  people  for  the  communion.  Lifting  up 
a  particle  of  the  holy  sacrament  he  says : 

Behold  the  Lamb  of  God,  behold  him  that  taketh  away  the 
sins  of  the  world. 

That  non-communicants  might  remain  throughout  the 
service  is  plain,  though  they  are  not  encouraged ;  yet  they 
too  take  part  in  the  commemoration  of  the  sacrifice. 
We  read : 

See  here  Christ  dying  in  this  holy  representation !  Behold 
the  sacrificed  Lamb  of  God,  that  taketh  away  the  sins  of  the 
world !  It  is  his  will  to  be  thus  frequently  crucified  before  our 
eyes. ...See  here  his  broken  body  and  his  blood,  the  testimonies 
of  his  willingness.... Deny  not  your  consent  but  heartily  give 
up  yourselves  to  Christ.... Receive  now  a  crucified  Christ  here 
represented,  and  be  contented  to  take  up  your  cross  and  follow 
him2. 

A  striking  feature  of  the  liturgy  is  the  adoration  of 
Jesus  exhibited  to  the  faithful  in  the  sacrament  as  the 
sacrificed  and  glorified  Lamb  of  God.  The  idea  behind  it 
is  the  same  as  that  of  Zwingli  in  the  Zurich  liturgy,  but 
its  special  interest  is  to  be  found  in  the  light  it  throws 
upon  the  interpretation  put  upon  the  Gloria  in  excelsis  as 
used  in  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  by  such  as  Baxter. 
Immediately  after  the  participation  the  minister  prays : 

Most  glorious  God,  how  wonderful  is  thy  power  and  wisdom, 
thy  holiness  and  justice,  thy  love  and  mercy,  in  this  work  of 
our  redemption,  by  the  incarnation,  life,  death,  resurrection, 
intercession  and  dominion  of  thy  Son  !   No  power  or  wisdom  in 

1  Frere,  Visitation  Articles,  vol.  II.  pp.  I92~3»  242>  276- 

2  Hall,  R.L.  vol.  IV.  pp.  61-4. 


222  THE  WORSHIP  OF  THE  LAMB  [ch. 

heaven  or  earth  could  have  delivered  us,  but  thine.  The  angels 
desire  to  pry  into  this  mystery :  the  heavenly  host  do  celebrate 
it  with  praises  saying,  Glory  be  to  God  in  the  highest;  on  earth 
peace,  goodwill  towards  men.  The  whole  creation  shall  proclaim 
thy  praises:  Blessing,  honour,  glory  and  power,  be  unto  him 
that  sitteth  upon  the  throne,  and  unto  the  Lamb  for  ever  and 
ever.  Worthy  is  the  Lamb  that  was  slain,  to  receive  power, 
and  honour,  and  glory :  for  he  hath  redeemed  us  to  God  by  his 
blood,  and  made  us  kings  and  priests  unto  our  God. ...With 
the  blood  of  thy  Son,  with  the  sacrament,  and  with  thy  Spirit, 
thou  hast  sealed  up  to  us  these  precious  promises1. 

We  must  now  examine  the  ideas  of  the  church  party  at 
the  Savoy  Conference.  In  Cosin's  First  Series  of  Notes 
upon  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  we  read : 

0  Lord  and  heavenly  Father .  In  King  Edward's  first  service 
book,  this  prayer  was  set  before  the  delivery  of  the  sacrament 
to  the  people,  and  followed  immediately  after  the  consecration ; 
and  certainly  it  was  the  better  and  the  more  natural  order  of 
the  two;  neither  do  I  know  whether  it  were  the  printer's 
negligence,  or  no,  thus  to  displace  it.  For  the  consecration  of 
the  sacrament  being  ever  the  first,  it  was  always  the  use  in 
all  liturgies  to  have  the  oblation  follow  (which  is  this),  and  then 
the  participation,  which  goes  before,  and  after  all,  the  thanks- 
giving, which  is  here  set  next  before  the  Gloria  in  excelsis;  in 
regard  whereof  I  have  always  observed  my  lord  and  master 
Dr  Overall  to  use  this  oblation  in  its  right  place,  when  he  had 
consecrated  the  sacrament  to  make  an  offering  of  it  (as  being 
the  true  public  sacrifice  of  the  church)  unto  God,  that  by  the 
merits  of  Christ's  death,  which  was  now  commemorated,  all 
the  Church  of  God  might  receive  mercy,  etc.  as  in  this  prayer; 
and  when  that  was  done  he  did  communicate  the  people,  and 
so  end  with  the  thanksgiving  following  hereafter2. 

Cosin  clearly  misunderstood  the  rationale  of  the  euchar- 
istic  prayer  in  the  Eastern  liturgies,  for  as  in  them  the 
consecration  is  deemed  to  be  effected  by  the  Epiclesis  and 

1  R.L.  vol.  IV.  pp.  74-5.         2  Parker,  Introduction,  pp.  ccxxiii,  ccxxiv. 


xin]  THE  WORSHIP  OF  THE  LAMB  223 

not  by  the  recitation  of  the  words  of  institution,  it  follows 
and  does  not  precede  what  he  calls  "the  oblation."  To 
Cosin,  as  to  the  Puritan  divines,  the  three  chief  elements 
in  the  ordinance  are  the  consecration,  the  commemoration 
of  the  sacrifice  and  the  communion.  The  difference  was 
that  to  the  Puritans  the  commemoration  of  the  sacrifice 
was  an  exhibition  of  the  sacrifice  to  men,  but  to  Cosin  and 
his  friends  a  presentation  of  the  sacrifice  to  God.  Conse- 
quently on  one  side  the  emphasis  was  on  making  an 
offering  to  the  Father  while  on  the  other  it  was  on  the 
manifestation  and  the  consequent  adoration  of  the  Son. 
As  the  order  of  the  liturgy  was  finally  settled  neither  side 
gained  what  they  desired. 

In  his  work  on  the  Catholic  Religion  of  the  Realm  of 
England  of  the  year  1652  Cosin  gave  a  description  of  the 
ceremonial  at  the  consecration  in  the  Lord's  Supper.  We 
read: 

Then  standing  up  by  solemn  prayers  which  contain  the 
institution  of  the  sacrament  and  the  very  words  of  Christ  when 
instituting  it,  breaking  the  bread  which  he  has  taken  into  his 
hands  and  pouring  out  the  wine  into  the  chalice,  he  blesses 
each  symbol,  and  consecrates  them  to  be  the  sacrament  of 
Christ's  body  and  blood1. 

In  the  Particulars  to  be  considered  (No.  57)  the  breaking 
of  the  bread  is  still  regarded  as  important,  but  nothing  is 
said  about  the  pouring  out  of  the  wine.   We  read : 

No  direction  is  given  to  the  priest  (as  in  King  Edward's 
service-book  there  was,  and  as  in  most  places  it  is  still  in  use) 
to  "take  the  bread  and  cup  into  his  hands"  nor  to  "break  the 
bread"  before  the  people,  which  is  a  needful  circumstance 
belonging  to  this  sacrament;  and  therefore,  for  his  better 
warrant  therein,  such  a  direction  ought  here  to  be  set  in  the 
margin  of  the  book2. 

1  Cosin,  Works,  vol.  iv.  p.  359. 

2  Cosin,  Works,  vol.  v.  pp.  516-7.  Cf.  Brightman,  English  Rite, 
vol.  1.  p.  ccxix. 


224  THE  WORSHIP  OF  THE  LAMB  [ch. 

The  possibility  of  the  pouring  out  of  the  wine  at  the 
time  of  consecration  is  allowed  according  to  Wren's  sug- 
gestions for  revising  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer.  His 
proposed  rubric  runs : 

Then  the  priest  standing  before  the  table  shall  so  order  and 
set  the  bread  and  the  wine  that,  while  he  is  pronouncing  the 
following  collect,  he  may  readily  take  the  bread  and  break  it, 
and  also  take  the  cup,  to  pour  into  it  (if  he  pour  it  not  before), 
and  then  he  shall  say...1. 

The  final  rubrics  on  the  point  are  clearly  due  to  Cosin : 

When  the  priest,  standing  before  the  table,  hath  so  ordered 
the  bread  and  wine,  that  he  may  with  the  more  readiness  and 
decency  break  the  bread  before  the  people,  and  take  the  cup 
into  his  hands,  he  shall  say  the  prayer  of  consecration,  as 
ioMoweth.... Who  in  the  same  night  that  he  was  betrayed  (Here 
the  priest  is  to  take  the  paten  into  his  hands)  took  bread;  and 
when  he  had  given  thanks  (And  here  to  break  the  bread),  he 
brake  it. 

The  Puritan  idea  of  the  commemoration  of  the  sacrifice 
of  Christ  is  thus  entirely  disallowed.   Baxter  had  written : 

Bread  and  wine,  being  first  by  consecration  made  sacra- 
mentally,  or  representatively  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ, 
are  used  by  breaking  and  pouring  out  to  represent  and  com- 
memorate the  sacrifice  of  Christ's  body  and  blood  upon  the 
cross  once  offered  up  to  God. 

Now  the  breaking  of  the  bread  is  directed  to  take  place 
before  consecration,  and  there  is  no  mention  of  the  pouring 
out  of  the  wine  at  all. 

The  rubrics  finally  adopted  are  found  in  the  Durham 
Book  and  in  this  Cosin's  suggestions  for  the  sequence  of 
the  eucharistic  prayer  are  also  set  out,  for  as  in  the  First 
Prayer  Book  "Wherefore,  O  Lord  and  heavenly  Father" 
follows  the  prayer  of  consecration  immediately.    A  note 

1  Parker,  Introduction,  p.  ccccxxv. 


xin]  THE  WORSHIP  OF  THE  LAMB  225 

in  Sancroft's  hand  shows,  however,  that  this  also  was 
afterwards  disallowed,  and  the  old  arrangement  of  the 
prayers  restored.   We  read: 

My  lords  the  bishops  at  Ely  House  ordered  all  in  the  old 
method,  thus — First  the  prayer  of  address,  We  do  not  presume ; 
with  the  rubric,  When  the  priest  standing,  etc.,  the  prayer 
of  consecration  unaltered  (only  one  for  own  and  Amen  at 
last)  with  the  marginal  rubrics.  Then  (the  memorial  or  prayer 
of  oblation  omitted  and  the  Lord's  prayer)  follow  the  rubrics 
and  forms  of  participation.... And  then  the  Lord's  prayer, 
the  collect,  0  Lord  and  heavenly  Father,  etc.,  etc.,  to  the  end1. 

The  bishops  thus  plainly  refused  to  accept  Cosin's  sug- 
gestion and  with  it  his  idea  of  the  eucharistic  sacrifice. 
Consequently  neither  Baxter's  nor  Cosin's  notion  of  the 
commemoration  of  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  was  officially 
recognised,  and  churchmen  were  left  free  to  hold  the 
doctrine  to  be  gathered  from  antiquity  and  the  ancient 
liturgies  on  the  subject,  and  to  accept  from  each  of  the 
opposing  parties  the  ideas  which  are  most  in  accordance 
with  these.  Yet  the  fact  of  the  commemoration  of  the 
sacrifice  is  deliberately  recognised,  for  the  second  exhorta- 
tion is  altered  to  read:  "so  it  is  your  duty  to  receive  the 
communion  in  remembrance  of  the  sacrifice  of  his  death," 
the  words  in  italics  being  an  addition;  while  there  is  still 
of  course  the  statement  in  the  Catechism  that  the  sacra- 
ment of  the  Lord's  Supper  was  ordained  "  for  the  continual 
remembrance  of  the  sacrifice  of  the  death  of  Christ." 

As  is  usual  in  all  such  cases  the  interpretation  according 
to  which  the  new  version  of  the  Prayer  Book  was  accepted 
is  of  no  less  importance  than  the  conflicting  ideas  which 
had  made  it  what  it  was.  Even  the  more  Protestant 
recognised  the  reverence  due  to  our  Lord  manifest  in  the 
sacrament  as  the  sacrificed  Lamb  of  God.  Daniel  Brevint, 
Canon  of  Durham,  and  afterwards  Dean  of  Lincoln,  in 

1  Parker,  Introduction,  p.  ccxxii. 
l.  e.  15 


226  THE  WORSHIP  OF  THE  LAMB  [ch. 

The  Christian  Sacrament  and  Sacrifice,  published  in  1673, 
thus  writes  of  the  eucharist : 

Therefore  whensoever  Christians  approach  to  this  dreadful 
mystery,  and  to  the  Lamb  of  God  lying  and  sacrificed  (as  some 
say  that  the  holy  Nicene  Council  speaks)  upon  the  holy  table: 
it  concerns  their  main  interest  in  point  of  salvation,  as  well 
as  in  other  duties,  to  take  a  special  care,  not  to  lame  and 
deprive  the  grand  sacrifice  of  its  own  due  attendance1. 

Archbishop  Laud  in  his  defence  of  adoration  towards 
the  altar  in  his  speech  in  the  Star  Chamber  on  June  14th, 
1637,  said: 

It  is  versus  altare,  towards  his  altar,  as  the  greatest  place  of 
God's  residence  on  earth2. 

And  again: 

Where  Harding  names  divers  ceremonies,  and  particularly 
bowing  themselves  and  adoring  at  the  sacrament — I  say  adoring 
at  the  sacrament,  not  adoring  the  sacrament:  there  Bishop 
Jewel  approves  all,  both  the  kneeling  and  the  bowing3. 

Adoration  of  Christ  at  the  sacrament  was  also  approved 
by  Cosin.  In  his  defence  of  the  practice  of  receiving  the 
communion  kneeling  in  his  Second  Series  of  Notes  on  the 
Book  of  Common  Prayer,  we  read: 

True  it  is,  that  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  sacra- 
mentally  and  really  (not  feignedly)  present,  when  the  blessed 
bread  and  wine  are  taken  by  the  faithful  communicants.... 
Therefore  whosoever  so  receiveth  them,  at  that  time  when  he 
receiveth  them,  rightly  doth  he  adore  and  reverence  his  Saviour 
there  together  with  the  sacramental  bread  and  cup,  exhibiting 
His  own  body  and  blood  unto  them.  But  our  kneeling,  and 
the  outward  gesture  of  humility  and  reverence  in  our  bodies, 
is  ordained  only  to  testify  and  express  the  inward  reverence 
and  devotion  of  our  souls  towards  our  blessed  Saviour,  Who 
vouchsafed  to  sacrifice  Himself  for  us  upon  the  cross,  and  now 

1  Brevint,  The  Christian  Sacrament  and  Sacrifice,  p.  94. 

2  Staley,  Hierurgia  Anglicana,  Pt  11.  1903,  p.  88.        s  Pt  II.  p.  89. 


xiii]  THE  WORSHIP  OF  THE  LAMB  227 

presenteth  Himself  to  be  united  sacramentally  to  us,  that  we 
may  enjoy  all  the  benefits  of  His  mystical  passion,  and  be 
nourished  with  the  spiritual  food  of  His  blessed  body  and 
blood  unto  life  eternal1. 

"The  inward  reverence  and  devotion  of  our  souls 
towards  our  blessed  Saviour"  was  commonly  expressed  in 
the  period  immediately  following  the  last  revision  of  the 
Prayer  Book  by  the  use  of  the  Agnus  Dei,  and  it  appears 
quite  frequently  in  books  of  devotion  for  private  use  at 
communion2.  This  act  of  worship  of  our  Lord  in  the  sacra- 
ment is  found  not  only  before  communion  but  afterwards 
in  accordance  with  the  ideas  which  seem  to  have  caused 
the  removal  of  the  Gloria  in  excelsis  to  its  new  position  in 
1552.  Thomas  Burnet  in  The  Nature,  Use  and  Efficacy  of 
the  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  published  in  1731,  and 
dedicated  to  members  of  the  Royal  Family,  gives  it  thus 
for  use  immediately  after  communion : 

O  Lamb  of  God,  who  takest  away  the  sins  of  the  world,  have 
mercy  upon  me.  By  thine  agony  and  bloody  sweat,  thy  cross 
and  passion,  good  Lord  deliver  me3. 

The  worship  of  our  Lord  exhibited  as  the  Lamb  of  God 
in  the  sacrament,  officially  recognised  in  the  Gloria  in 
excelsis,  was  thus  at  the  end  of  the  seventeenth  and  the 
beginning  of  the  eighteenth  century  a  common  element 
of  private  eucharistic  devotion  after  as  well  as  before 
reception.  If  the  faithful  coming  to  communion  could  be 
said  to  "approach  to  the  dreadful  mystery  and  to  the 
Lamb  of  God  lying  and  sacrificed  upon  the  holy  table"  it 
was  not  unlikely  that  afterwards  when  what  remained  of 
the  consecrated  elements  was  reverently  placed  upon  the 
holy  table  and  covered  with  a  fair  linen  cloth  the  same 
idea  should  be  continued,  the  negations  of  the  revisers 

1  Parker,  Introduction,  p.  ccxx. 

2  Legg,  English  Church  Life,  pp.  57-60. 

3  Burnet,  The  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  p.  30. 

15—2 


228  THE  WORSHIP  OF  THE  LAMB  [ch. 

being  forgotten  but  their  positive  ideas  accepted,  and  that 
men  should  still  "behold  the  sacrificed  Lamb  of  God,  that 
taketh  away  the  sins  of  the  world,"  and  worship  Him  in 
"these  holy  mysteries"  in  the  traditional  phraseology  of 
the  Agnus,  which  is  included  in  the  Gloria  in  excelsis. 
The  rubric  requiring  the  sacrament  to  remain  on  the  altar 
until  the  end  of  the  service  according  to  ancient  custom 
made  it  impossible  that  it  should  be  otherwise,  when  the 
negations  of  the  sixteenth  century  were  abandoned,  and 
much  of  the  earlier  faith  restored.  The  association  of  the 
Gloria  in  excelsis  with  the  sacramental  presence  of  our 
Lord  was  not  a  new  thing.  Thomas  Becon  in  his  Displaying 
of  the  Popish  Mass  says : 

After  these  things  ye  go  unto  the  midst  of  the  altar,  and 
looking  up  to  the  pyx,  where  ye  think  your  God  to  be,  and 
making  solemn  courtesy,  like  womanly  Joan,  ye  say  the 
Gloria  in  excelsis1. 

Nor  could  this  worship  of  our  Lord  very  well  be  limited 
to  those  who  communicated  on  that  particular  occasion. 
Both  the  Parliamentary  Directory  and  Baxter's  liturgy 
recognised  that  non-communicants  might  be  present 
during  the  celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  though  it  was 
not  encouraged  or  regarded  as  fulfilling  our  Lord's  com- 
mand, and  the  same  thing  is  the  historical  explanation  of 
the  form  taken  by  some  of  the  rubrics  of  the  Book  of 
Common  Prayer,  when  under  the  First  Prayer  Book  it 
was  the  ordinary  custom.  The  strong  condemnation  of 
those  who  were  present  at  the  sacrament  without  com- 
municating, inserted  in  the  Second  Prayer  Book  at  Bucer's 
suggestion  and  based  perhaps  on  words  of  St  Chrysostom2, 
was  omitted  in  1662  so  that  freedom  in  the  matter  was 
restored.  According  to  Bishop  Wren  at  this  date  there  was 
no  need  for  the  words  of  the  exhortation  any  longer,  and 

1  Becon,  Displaying  of  the  Popish  Mass.  Works  (Parker  Society), 
vol.  in.  p.  263. 

2  In  Epis.  ad  Ephes.  Cap.  i.  Horn,  hi.,  P.G.  lxii.  col.  29. 


xin]  THE  WORSHIP  OF  THE  LAMB  229 

among  his  proposals  for  altering  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer  we  read : 

To  stand  by,  as  gazers  and  lookers  on,  is  now  wholly  out  of 
use  in  all  parishes.  And  the  Not-Communicants  generally  do 
use  to  depart,  without  bidding1. 

If  these  words  were  intended  to  refer  to  all  non-com- 
municating attendance,  to  the  presence  of  those  who  were 
regular  communicants  on  other  occasions  as  well  as  of 
those  who  never  communicated  at  all,  it  certainly  was  not 
the  truth  a  little  later.  We  read  of  John  Evelyn  in  1684, 
after  communicating  at  an  early  celebration  at  Whitehall 
being  present  again  at  a  later  celebration,  and  there  is 
nothing  to  show  that  it  was  anything  exceptional,  or  con- 
fined to  the  court.   He  writes: 

30  [March]  Easter  Day.  The  bishop  of  Rochester  [Dr  Turner] 
preached  before  the  king;  after  which  his  majesty,  accom- 
panied with  three  of  his  natural  sons... went  up  to  the  altar; 
the  three  boys  entering  before  the  king  within  the  rails,  at  the 
right  hand,  and  three  bishops  on  the  left,  viz.  London  (who 
Officiated),  Durham,  and  Rochester  with  the  Sub  Dean 
Dr  Holder.  The  king  kneeling  before  the  altar,  making  his 
offering,  the  bishops  first  received,  and  then  his  majesty;  after 
which  he  retired  to  a  canopied  seat  on  the  right  hand.  Note 
there  was  perfume  burnt  before  the  office  began.  I  had  received 
the  sacrament  at  Whitehall  early  with  the  Lords  and  House- 
hold, the  Bishop  of  London  officiating.  Then  went  to 
St  Martin's,  where  Dr  Tenison  preached,... then  went  again  to 
Whitehall  as  above.  In  the  afternoon  went  to  St  Martin's 
again2. 

The  Bishop  of  London  evidently  duplicated,  but 
Evelyn  was  present  the  second  time  without  communi- 
cating. In  a  day  so  crowded  with  religious  observance  it 
is  unlikely  that  Evelyn  was  there  simply  for  sight-seeing, 

1  Parker,  Introduction,  p.  ccccxxv. 

2  Bray,  The  Diary  of  John  Evelyn,  Esquire,  F.R.S.  (The  Chandos 
Classics),  pp.  456-7. 


230  THE  WORSHIP  OF  THE  LAMB  [ch. 

and  it  appears  not  to  have  been  the  custom  for  non-com- 
municants to  depart.  If  the  words  of  Baxter's  exhorta- 
tion were  true  even  for  those  who  refused  the  invitation 
to  communion  they  could  hardly  be  untrue  for  those  who 
had  communicated  at  an  earlier  service  or  on  another 
occasion : 

See  here  Christ  dying  in  this  holy  representation!  Behold 
the  sacrificed  Lamb  of  God,  that  taketh  away  the  sins  of  the 
world !  It  is  his  will  to  be  thus  frequently  crucified  before  our 
eyes1. 

The  adoration  of  Christ,  exhibited  in  His  sacrament  as 
the  sacrificed  and  glorified  Lamb  of  God,  which  is  pro- 
vided in  the  Gloria  in  excelsis,  whatever  its  original  purpose 
and  scope,  is  put  into  the  mouths  of  all,  and  is  an  act  of 
worship  for  all.  The  private  opinions  of  the  revisers  of  the 
Book  of  Common  Prayer  at  one  period  were  never  regarded 
as  binding  by  the  revisers  of  another,  nor  have  they  been 
regarded  as  necessarily  binding  on  anyone  except  in  so 
far  as  they  have  been  incorporated  in  the  text ;  and  indeed 
as  they  have  been  so  contradictory  it  would  have  been 
impossible.  The  Prayer  Book  must  be  interpreted  not  as 
expressing  the  views  of  one  party  or  another,  either  in  the 
sixteenth  or  seventeenth  century,  but  in  accordance  with 
its  own  appeal  to  antiquity,  in  the  light  of  that  knowledge 
which  is  the  privilege  of  the  particular  age. 

In  the  liturgy  of  St  James  after  the  fraction  at  the  con- 
signation the  priest  says: 

Behold  the  Lamb  of  God  that  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the 
world,  slain  for  the  life  and  salvation  of  the  world2. 

After  the  people's  thanksgiving  for  communion  at  the 
last  entrance  when  the  priest  returns  to  the  sanctuary  with 
the  sacred  elements  the  archdeacon  says: 

Glory  to  thee,  glory  to  thee,  glory  to  thee,  O  Christ  the  King, 

1  See  p.  221.    Hall,  Reliquiae  Liturgicae,  vol.  iv.  p.  6i. 

2  Brightrnan,  Eastern  Liturgies,  p.  62. 


xin]  THE  WORSHIP  OF  THE  LAMB  231 

the  only  begotten  Word  of  the  Father,  for  thou  didst  vouchsafe 
that  we  thy  sinful  and  unworthy  servants  should  enjoy  thy 
spotless  mysteries  for  the  remission  of  our  sins  and  eternal 
life.  Glory  to  thee1. 

Similarly  in  the  Syrian  liturgy  in  a  prayer  of  the  fraction 
we  read : 

Thou  art  the  Lamb  of  God  that  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the 
world2. 

Returning  with  the  mysteries  at  the  last  entrance  the 
priest  says: 

Glory  to  thee,  glory  to  thee,  glory  to  thee,  O  our  Lord  and 
our  God  for  ever.  Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  let  not  thy  holy  body 
which  we  have  eaten  and  thy  propitiatory  blood  which  we  have 
drunk  be  unto  us  for  judgment  and  for  vengeance  but  for  the 
life  and  salvation  of  us  all :  and  have  mercy  upon  us3. 

Thus  in  both  the  liturgies  of  the  Syrian  rite  our  Lord  in 
the  sacrament  is  recognised  as  the  sacrificed  Lamb  of  God, 
and  He  is  worshipped  after  the  communion  in  words  very 
similar  to  the  beginning  of  the  Gloria  in  excelsis — "Glory 
to  thee." 

In  the  Nestorian  liturgy  we  are  told  that  "when  the 
people  have  received  the  holy  thing  the  priest  takes  back 
the  vessels,  with  the  mysteries  to  their  place  (and  the 
veil  is  closed)  "4;  and  there  they  remain  until  they  are  con- 
sumed when  the  celebrant  makes  his  communion  at  the 
end  of  the  service.  At  the  end  of  the  thanksgiving  after  the 
people's  communion  "one  of  the  deacons  binds  up  the 
veil,"  and  the  mysteries  are  again  exposed  to  view.  Those 
that  are  in  the  nave  then  say  this  psalm : 

O  praise  the  Lord  of  heaven  :  the  Son  who  gave  us  his  body 
and  blood. 

Praise  him  in  the  height  :  the  Son  who  gave  us  his  body  and 
blood  (and  the  rest  of  Ps.  cxlviii.  1-6  in  like  manner). 

1  Brightman,  p.  65.  2  Brightman,  p.  99. 

3  Brightman,  p.  104.  *  Brightman,  p.  301. 


232  THE  WORSHIP  OF  THE  LAMB  [ch. 

And  they  proceed 

0  praise  the  Lord,  all  ye  heathen:  For  his  gift  to  us. 
Praise  him,  all  ye  nations:  For  his  gift  to  us 

{and  the  rest  of  Ps.  cxvii). 
Glory  be  to  the  Father  and  to  the  Son  and  to  the  Holy  Ghost : 

To  the  Son  who  gave  us  his  body  and  blood. 
From  everlasting  to  everlasting  world  without  end,  Amen : 

To  the  Son  who  gave  us  his  body  and  blood. 
Let  all  the  people  say  Amen  and  Amen : 

To  the  Son  who  gave  us  his  body  and  blood. 
Let  us  confess  and  worship  and  glorify : 

The  Son  who  gave  us  his  body  and  blood. 
And  they  proceed 
Our  Father  which  art  in  heaven, 
three  times  (without  f arcings)  K 

Again  we  have  adoration  of  the  Son  and  thanksgiving 
to  Him  for  the  blessings  of  communion,  while  there  is  a 
further  point  of  contact  with  the  English  liturgy  in  the 
use  of  the  Lord's  prayer  after  the  communion,  all  in  the 
presence  of  the  blessed  sacrament. 

In  the  liturgy  of  St  Chrysostom  at  the  fraction  the 
priest  says: 

Broken  and  distributed  is  the  Lamb  of  God,  who  was  broken 
and  not  divided2. 

The  holy  sacrament  is  twice  exposed  to  the  people  to 
kindle  their  adoration  after  the  communion  of  the  min- 
isters. On  the  first  occasion  which  is  after  the  communion 
of  the  people  when  any  receive  we  have  a  benediction 
with  the  blessed  sacrament.   We  read: 

And  thus  they  open  the  door  of  the  sanctuary,  and  the 
deacon  bowing  once  takes  the  holy  chalice  from  the  priest 
with  reverence  and  goes  to  the  door,  and  elevating  it  shows  it 
to  the  people,  saying,  In  the  fear  of  God,  and  faith  and  love 
draw  near.  The  choir,  Blessed  is  he  that  cometh  in  the  name  of 

1  Brightman,  pp.  302-3.  3  Brightman,  p.  393. 


xiii]  THE  WORSHIP  OF  THE  LAMB  233 

the  Lord.  God  is  the  Lord  and  hath  showed  us  light.  And  the  priest 
blesses  the  people  saying  over  them  aloud,  0  God  save  thy 
People  and  bless  thine  inheritance.  The  choir  the  apolutikon  of 
the  day1.  And  both  the  deacon  and  priest  return  to  the  holy 
table,  and  the  deacon  puts  down  the  holy  cup  upon  it  and 
says  to  the  priest,  Exalt,  sir.  And  the  priest  censes  it  thrice 
saying  to  himself,  Be  thou  exalted,  0  God,  above  the  heavens,  and 
thy  glory  above  all  the  earth.  Then  taking  the  holy  paten  he 
puts  it  upon  the  head  of  the  deacon,  and  the  deacon  takes  it 
with  reverence,  looks  outside  towards  the  door,  and  saying 
nothing,  departs  to  the  prothesis  and  puts  it  down.  And  the 
priest  bows  and  takes  the  holy  chalice  [containing  the  remains 
of  the  holy  sacrament],  and  turns  towards  the  door,  and  looks 
at  the  people  saying,  Blessed  be  our  God.  Then  he  says  aloud, 
At  all  times,  now  and  always  and  for  ever  and  ever2. 

This  attitude  towards  the  holy  sacrament  is  by  no 
means  simply  modern,  even  if  it  does  not  belong  to  the 
earliest  days.  The  blessing  of  the  faithful  by  the  priest 
after  the  communion  while  he,  or  the  deacon  by  his  side, 
holds  the  sacrament  in  his  hands  is  as  old  as  the  beginning 
of  the  ninth  century  at  any  rate  in  the  liturgy  of  the  pre- 
sanctified.  St  Theodore  of  the  Studium  (c.  800)  in  his 
work,  De  Praesanctificatis,  says: 

After  the  reception  by  the  brethren  there  is  said,  0  God, 
save  thy  people  and  bless  thine  inheritance,  and  he  marks  them 
with  the  divine  sign  of  the  precious  cross.  The  divine  gifts  he 
on  no  account  puts  down  on  the  divine  table,  but  immediately 
puts  them  away  in  the  prothesis3. 

The  second  act  of  reverence  towards  the  blessed  sacra- 
ment we  find  already  in  the  eleventh  century  codex  of  the 
liturgy  of  St  Chrysostom.   We  read : 

And  when  he  is  about  to  return  the  holy  gifts  where  they 

were  set  forth,  on  taking  them  from  the  holy  table  the  deacon 

censes  them  thrice.  The  priest  says  to  himself,  Be  thou  exalted, 

1  A  hymn  of  dismissal.  a  Brightman,  pp.  395-7. 

3  P.G.  xcix.  col.  1689. 


234  THE  WORSHIP  OF  THE  LAMB  [ch. 

0  God,  above  the  heavens,  and  thy  glory  above  all  the  earth, 
and  taking  them  up  he  says  aloud,  At  all  times,  now  and  always, 
and  for  ever  and  ever1. 

This  taking  up  of  the  sacrament  for  removal  to  the 
prothesis  is  thus  likened  in  the  priest's  prayer  to  our 
Lord's  ascension,  and  allusions  to  this  interpretation  we 
find  in  various  writers  of  different  periods.  An  exposition 
of  the  liturgy  written  by  Germanus,  patriarch  of  Constan- 
tinople (fc.  740),  but  interpolated  (c.  1100),  says: 

The  taking  up  of  the  holy  remnants  which  are  left  suggests 
the  ascension  of  our  Lord  and  God2. 

Similarly  we  read  in  the  commentary  of  Simeon  of 
Thessalonica  (f  1429)  on  the  liturgy: 

Censing  the  gifts  the  chief  priest  departs  saying  also  those 
things  which  manifest  the  ascension  of  the  Saviour3. 

In  the  Longer  Catechism  of  the  Russian  Church,  in 
accordance  with  such  traditional  expositions,  a  mystical 
interpretation  is  given  to  each  of  the  two  special  acts  of 
reverence  towards  our  Lord  in  His  sacramental  presence 
after  the  communion.   We  read : 

Q.  What  is  set  forth  after  this  [the  communion  of  the  clergy] 
by  the  drawing  back  of  the  veil,  the  opening  of  the  royal  doors, 
and  the  appearance  of  the  holy  gifts? 

A .  The  appearance  of  Jesus  Christ  Himself  after  His  resur- 
rection. 

Q.  What  is  figured  by  the  last  showing  of  the  holy  gifts  to 
the  people  after  which  they  are  hid  from  view? 

A .   The  ascension  of  Jesus  Christ  into  heaven4. 

Almost  the  same  symbolical  interpretation  is  found  in 
the  Liturgical  Homilies  of  Narsai  (t  c.  502)  which  explain 

1  Swainson,  p.  141. 

2  Goar,  Enchologion,  p.  131,  n.  182. 

3  Goar,  pp.  131,  192. 

4  Blackmore,  Doctrine  of  the  Russian  Church,  p.  94. 


xin]  THE  WORSHIP  OF  THE  LAMB  235 

an  early  form  of  the  Nestorian  rite.    After  the  priest's 
thanksgiving  for  communion  we  read : 

Then  all  in  the  altar  and  without  in  the  congregation  pray 
the  prayer  which  that  lifegiving  mouth  taught.  With  it  do  men 
begin  every  prayer,  morning  and  evening :  and  with  it  do  they 
complete  all  the  rites  (or  mysteries)  of  holy  church.  This  it  is 
said  is  that  which  includes  all  prayer,  and  without  it  no  prayer 
is  concluded.  Then  the  priest  goes  forth  and  stands  at  the  door 
of  the  altar;  and  he  stretches  forth  his  hands  and  blesses  the 
people,  and  says — the  whole  people  the  priest  blesses  in  that 
hour,  symbolizing  the  blessing  which  our  Lord  Jesus  gave  to 
His  twelve.  On  the  day  of  His  ascension  He  the  High  Pontiff, 
lifted  up  His  hands  and  blessed  and  made  priests  of  His  twelve ; 
and  then  He  was  taken  up.  A  symbol  of  His  resurrection  has 
the  priest  typified  by  the  completion  of  the  mysteries,  and  a 
symbol  of  His  revelation  before  His  disciples  by  distributing 
Him.  By  the  stretching  out  of  the  hands  of  the  bright-robed 
priest  towards  the  light  he  confers  a  blessing  upon  the  whole 
congregation;  and  thus  he  says,  He  that  hath  blessed  us  with 
every  blessing  of  the  Spirit  in  heaven,  may  He  also  now  bless  us 
all  with  the  power  of  His  mysteries... and  with  his  right  hand  he 
signs  the  congregation  with  the  living  sign1. 

We  note  the  use  of  the  Lord's  prayer  after  the  com- 
munion as  in  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  and  the  blessing 
"with  the  power  of  His  mysteries,"  not  unlike  the  blessing 
"in  the  knowledge  and  love  of. .  .his  Son  Jesus  Christ" 
after  communion  which  has  characterised  the  English  rite 
since  the  publication  of  the  Order  of  Communion  in  1548. 

The  liturgy  of  the  Armenians  has  also  the  benediction 
with  the  blessed  sacrament  after  the  communion  as  in 
the  liturgy  of  St  Chrysostom,  though  according  to  some 
texts  there  is  no  allusion  to  it  in  the  rubrics2.   We  read: 

1  Connolly,  The  Liturgical  Homilies  of  Narsai,  pp.  30-3 1 . 

2  Issaverdenz,  The  Armenian  Liturgy,  p.  81.  Translations  of  Christian 
Liturgies,  1.  The  Armenian  Liturgy,  p.  104.  Fortescue,  The  Armenian 
Church,  p.  107.   Daniel,  Codex  Liturgicus,  vol.  IV.  p.  477. 


236  THE  WORSHIP  OF  THE  LAMB  [ch. 

Then  all  who  are  worthy  communicate.  The  clerks  sing... 
This  is  the  same  Christ  the  divine  Word  who  sitteth  at  the  right 
hand  of  the  Father,  and  who  sacrificed  here  amongst  us  taketh 
away  the  sin  of  the  world.  He  is  blessed  for  ever  with  the  Father 
and  the  Spirit,  now  and  ever  for  the  time  to  come  and  world 
without  end.  When  all  have  communicated  the  clerks  sing  in  a 
loud  voice,  Our  God  and  our  Lord  hath  appeared  to  us.  Blessed 
is  he  that  cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord.  Then  the  priest  makes 
over  them  the  sign  of  the  cross  with  the  sacred  gifts,  and  says, 
Save  thy  people,  0  Lord,  and  bless  thine  inheritance:  govern  them 
and  lift  them  tip  for  ever.  The  clerks  sing,  We  have  been  filled, 
0  Lord,  from  thy  good  things,  tasting  of  thy  body  and  blood:  Glory 
be  on  high  to  thee  who  hast  fed  us.  Thou  who  continually  feedest 
us,  send  down  upon  us  thy  spiritual  blessing:  Glory  be  on  high  to 
thee  who  hast  fed  us1. 

We  notice  how  the  ideas  of  the  Agnus  are  incorporated 
in  the  communion  hymn  which  is  really  a  paraphrase  of 
part  of  the  Gloria  in  excelsis.  The  hymn  of  thanksgiving 
after  the  benediction  with  the  sacrament  also  has  affinity 
with  the  Gloria. 

Our  examination  of  the  ancient  liturgies  has  shown  that 
the  thought  of  our  Lord  as  the  sacrificed  Lamb  of  God 
manifest  in  the  eucharist  is  found  in  almost  all.  The 
worship  of  Him  after  the  communion  in  His  special  sacra- 
mental presence  is  also  very  widespread,  and  in  words 
not  very  dissimilar  from  those  provided  in  the  Gloria  in 
excelsis.  The  Church  of  England  in  the  original  preface  of 
the  Prayer  Book  now  entitled,  "Concerning  the  service  of 
the  Church,"  appealed  "  to  the  mind  and  purpose  of  the  old 
fathers"  of  liturgy.  Likewise  at  the  last  revision  in  1661 
the  appeal  was  to  "the  most  ancient  liturgies,"  and  to 
these  the  revisers  were  referred  by  Charles  II  in  his 
Letters  Patent  of  March  25th  of  that  year2.  Of  the  liturgy 

1  Brightman,  pp.  452-4.   Cf.  Malan,  The  Divine  Liturgy  of  the  Armen- 
ian Church,  p.  50. 

2  Cardwell,  Conferences,  3rd  Ed.  p.  300. 


xin]  THE  WORSHIP  OF  THE  LAMB  237 

which  bears  the  name  of  one  of  the  "ancient  fathers" 
St  Chrysostom,  the  faithful  have  been  reminded  twice 
every  day  for  centuries.  It  is  in  accordance  with  the 
consensus  of  the  liturgies,  not  by  the  contradictory 
opinions  of  different  sets  of  revisers,  that  "all  sober, 
peaceable,  and  truly  conscientious  sons  of  the  Church  of 
England"  have  tried  to  interpret  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer,  as  the  book  itself  recommends.  Thus  all  such  have 
been  able  when  "what  remaineth  of  the  consecrated 
elements"  has  been  reverently  placed  upon  the  Lord's 
table,  to  recognise  still  "the  Lamb  of  God  lying  and 
sacrificed  upon  the  holy  table,"  as  Daniel  Brevint  said1, 
and  whether  in  thanksgiving  for  communion  or  in  simple 
adoration  to  join  with  the  angelic  hosts  in  worshipping  the 
"Lamb  as  it  had  been  slain,"  "Who  hath  appeared  unto 
us"— 

O  Lord  God,  Lamb  of  God.  Son  of  the  Father,  that  takest 
away  the  sins  of  the  world,  have  mercy  upon  us,  receive  our 
prayer.  Thou  that  sittest  at  the  right  hand  of  God  the  Father, 
have  mercy  upon  us.  For  thou  only  art  holy;  thou  only  art 
the  Lord,  thou  only,  O  Christ,  with  the  Holy  Ghost  art  most 
high  in  the  glory  of  God  the  Father.  Amen. 

1  See  p.  226. 


CHAPTER  XIV 
CONCLUSIONS 

WE  are  now  in  a  position  to  summarise  our  chief 
results.  The  primitive  custom  appears  to  have  been 
that  what  was  left  of  the  consecrated  elements  after  the 
communion  at  the  eucharist  should  not  be  consumed  at 
once  immediately  after  the  administration,  but  be  reserved 
at  any  rate  until  the  end  of  the  service  either  in  the  sacristy 
or  on  the  altar  and  generally,  in  accordance  with  the 
Mosaic  rules  for  the  disposal  of  the  remains  of  the  sacrifices, 
until  the  next  day.  This  practice  seems  to  have  existed 
everywhere  in  the  early  days  so  far  as  we  know,  and  lasted 
with  slight  modifications  for  many  centuries.  The  remains 
were  disposed  of  finally  in  a  variety  of  ways,  some  of  them 
very  extraordinary  to  our  modern  notions,  being  burnt,  a 
practice  derived  from  the  Jewish  law,  buried,  or  given  to 
children.  The  more  common  usage  was  that  any  residue 
which  was  left,  presumably  of  both  kinds,  should  be 
carried  into  the  sacristy,  and  in  so  far  as  it  had  not  been 
intended  for  reservation  should  be  consumed  by  the 
clergy  or  used  for  communion  the  next  day.  In  the  Greek 
church  the  remains  are  still  carried  into  the  prothesis, 
and,  when  there  is  no  deacon  or  he  has  not  communicated, 
consumed  by  the  priest  after  the  service,  so  that  what 
was  a  very  early  custom  has  continued  with  little  change 
until  modern  times.  In  the  West  the  history  was  more  or 
less  identical  for  centuries,  but  as  a  rule  it  would  seem  the 
residue  of  the  sacrament,  commonly  called  the  Sancta, 
was  kept  on  the  altar  until  the  end  of  the  liturgy,  special 
provision  being  made  at  Rome  that  this  should  always  be 


ch.  xiv]  CONCLUSIONS  239 

the  case  by  the  rule  that  the  third  part  of  the  celebrant's 
host  should  be  put  down  on  the  altar  at  the  fraction,  and 
remain  there  till  the  conclusion  of  mass.  The  remnants 
were  disposed  of  finally  in  ways  very  similar  to  those 
which  prevailed  in  the  East  as  the  letter  of  the  pseudo 
Clement  and  its  derivatives  bear  witness,  being  consumed 
generally  by  the  clergy  in  the  sacristy,  originally  not  till 
next  day,  or  according  to  the  decrees  of  the  Gallican 
councils  consumed  by  children  and  others,  in  the  later 
days  apparently  at  the  end  of  the  liturgy  and  in  the 
church. 

In  the  earliest  period  all  cleansing  of  the  sacred  vessels 
must  have  been  performed  in  the  sacristy  after  the  con- 
sumption of  the  remains,  and  obviously  not  before  the 
end  of  the  service.  According  to  the  letter  of  the  pseudo 
Clement  it  appears  to  have  been  the  function  of  the  min- 
ister. Modification  of  the  practice  seems  to  have  been  due 
to  the  change  of  custom  by  which  the  holy  vessels,  which 
formerly  had  been  kept  and  cleansed  in  the  sacristy,  were 
kept  and  cleansed  near  the  altar.  The  alteration  took 
place  originally  it  would  appear  in  Gallican  circles,  and 
the  Admonition  ascribed  to  Leo  IV  (c.  847)  seems  to  mark 
the  beginning  of  the  transition.  The  cleansing  was  now 
properly  the  function  of  the  priest,  a  point  on  which  the 
Admonition  is  emphatic,  but  in  spite  of  discouragement 
the  custom,  which  was  perhaps  really  the  more  primitive, 
grew  by  which  it  was  performed  by  the  deacon  or  sub- 
deacon,  and  consequently  to  bring  it  into  agreement  with 
current  practice,  various  modifications  were  introduced 
into  the  original  text  of  the  Admonition  of  the  pseudo 
Leo. 

The  washing  of  the  priest's  hands  after  the  communion 
during  the  service  is  heard  of  first  in  the  ninth  century  in 
the  Ordo  of  St  Amand,  though  curiously  it  does  not  men- 
tion the  celebrant  in  this  connection,  and  the  washing  of 
his  hands  first  appears  in  the  tenth  century  in  the  Codex 


240  CONCLUSIONS  [ch. 

Ratoldi  of  Corbie,  and  in  the  Sixth  Roman  Ordo.  The 
ceremonial  ablution  of  the  chalice  with  the  consumption 
of  the  liquid  used,  apparently  wine,  is  not  found  before  the 
middle  of  the  eleventh  century,  but  then  according  to 
Peter  Damien  it  is  a  well  established  and  traditional 
usage.  It  is  really  of  course  only  a  preliminary  to  the 
older  and  more  thorough  cleansing  of  the  chalice,  and 
paten  also,  at  the  conclusion  of  the  service.  About  the 
same  time  in  the  description  of  the  ceremonies  of  mass  as 
celebrated  at  Rouen,  given  by  John  of  Avranches,  we 
first  read  of  the  sprinkling  of  the  priest's  fingers,  which 
took  place  in  some  churches  on  some  occasions  in  a  second 
chalice,  but  in  others  in  the  chalice  of  the  mass.  This 
ablution  also  as  well  as  that  of  the  chalice  itself  was  con- 
sumed by  the  priest,  in  contradistinction  to  the  more 
ancient  usage  at  the  washing  of  the  priest's  hands  in 
bowls  or  at  the  piscina,  when  the  water  was  always 
poured  away.  As  time  went  on  the  ablutions  became 
more  and  more  elaborate,  and  frequently  the  final  cleans- 
ing of  the  chalice  as  well  as  the  ceremonial  ablution  took 
place  in  church  and  during  the  service:  of  this  practice 
also  John  of  Avranches  is  our  earliest  informant.  As  the 
whole  action  had  come  to  be  performed  in  church  and 
was  now  the  duty  of  the  ministers  of  the  altar,  not  of  the 
celebrant,  there  was  clearly  no  longer  any  reason  why  it 
should  be  postponed  until  the  end  of  the  liturgy,  and  con- 
venience suggested  that  the  consumption  of  the  remains, 
both  of  chalice  and  paten,  should  take  place  as  soon  as 
possible  after  the  communion,  so  that  the  cleansing  of 
them  could  be  completed  while  the  priest  was  finishing 
the  prayers,  and  the  vessels,  cleansed  and  ready  for  use 
another  day,  could  be  put  away  in  the  chest  near  the 
altar  before  the  close  of  the  mass,  or  carried  away  when 
the  deacon  and  other  ministers  left  the  altar.  Various 
relics  of  the  older  usage  still  survived  for  a  long  time  in 
the  details  we  find  prescribed  in  the  different  orders  regu- 


xiv]  CONCLUSIONS  241 

lating  ceremonial,  as  in  the  Cistercian  statutes  of  the 
twelfth  century,  and  the  rule  of  St  Victor  of  the  thirteenth, 
and  the  vessels  are  cleansed  after  mass  and  the  minute 
remnants  consumed.  The  customs  of  high  mass,  in  which 
we  find  the  proper  norm  of  a  rite,  would  naturally  be 
followed  with  the  necessary  modifications  at  low  mass, 
and  so  though  there  were  numerous  minor  variations  in 
different  localities  and  survivals  from  older  usage,  as  at 
Rouen,  there  was  evolved  what  has  been  the  general 
custom  for  centuries  in  most  parts  of  the  West. 

With  regard  to  the  remains  of  the  consecrated  bread 
the  history  was  somewhat  different  from  what  it  was 
with  regard  to  the  wine,  and  at  quite  an  early  date  at 
any  rate  at  Rome  the  remnants  were  added  to  what  was 
to  be  reserved.  Until  the  end  of  the  sixteenth  century 
it  was  the  general  custom  throughout  most  of  the  West 
and  certainly  at  Rome,  as  witness  Patricius,  Marcellus, 
Burchard  and  de  Grassis,  that  the  consecrated  hosts 
which  were  left  over  from  the  communion,  if  whole, 
should  remain  on  the  altar  until  the  end  of  the  mass  so 
that  every  time  communion  was  given  in  its  proper  place 
immediately  after  the  consecration,  the  latter  part  of  the 
service  was  said  in  the  presence  of  the  blessed  sacrament, 
and  it  became  almost  a  mass  of  exposition.  The  earliest 
to  change  this  custom  appear  to  have  been  the  Dominicans 
and  the  Carmelites,  whose  ceremonial  on  so  many  points 
was  similar  and  almost  certainly  derived  from  a  common 
source,  and  another  practice  had  been  adopted  by  the 
thirteenth  century.  The  change  seems  to  have  been 
adopted  first  on  Maundy  Thursday  when  in  Carmelite 
churches,  in  imitation  apparently  of  the  custom  which  at 
one  time  obtained  at  Rome  from  about  the  tenth  century 
until  after  the  return  from  Avignon,  being  a  development 
as  we  saw  from  the  earlier  ceremonial  removal  of  the 
Fermentum,  there  was  a  procession  soon  after  the  com- 
munion of  the  consecrated  host  to  the  altar  or  other  place 
l.  e.  16 


242  CONCLUSIONS  [CH. 

of  repose,  as  well  as  the  procession  of  the  consecrated  oils 
at  much  the  same  point,  the  latter  a  function  possible  only 
in  cathedral  churches  in  the  presence  of  the  bishop.  In 
other  and  particularly  in  monastic  churches  in  which  it 
was  adopted  the  procession  of  the  sacrament  seems 
practically  to  have  taken  the  place  of  the  earlier  procession 
of  the  oils  in  cathedrals,  but  where  the  two  processions 
were  necessary  that  of  the  sacrament  in  most  places, 
except  for  some  time  in  Rome,  continued  to  be  held  im- 
mediately after  the  conclusion  of  mass.  It  was  natural 
that  the  more  elaborate  custom  of  Maundy  Thursday 
should  tend  to  be  imitated  on  ordinary  days,  and  so  we 
find  that  in  the  Dominican  and  Carmelite  books  the  con- 
secrated hosts  to  be  reserved  for  another  day  were  solemnly 
carried  away  by  the  deacon  immediately  the  communion 
of  the  faithful  was  over  without  waiting  for  the  final 
prayers.  At  York  on  Maundy  Thursday  the  sacrament 
appears  to  have  been  put  away  by  the  bishop  in  the  place 
of  repose,  or  sepulchre,  immediately  after  the  communion, 
but  nothing  is  said  about  a  procession.  We  find  this  also, 
however,  adopted  at  Holyrood  in  the  fifteenth  century. 
There  appears  to  be  no  evidence  that  any  such  custom 
obtained  in  England  on  ordinary  days  according  to  any 
of  the  mediaeval  uses;  the  traditional  manner  of  reserva- 
tion in  a  hanging  pyx  would  hardly  lend  itself  to  such  a 
practice. 

At  Rome  the  custom  of  removing  the  sacrament  from 
the  altar  after  the  communion  seems  to  have  been  adopted 
first  in  the  sixteenth  century  at  a  pontifical  mass  because 
as  Paris  de  Grassis  explained  it  was  difficult,  if  not  im- 
possible, to  carry  out  the  full  ceremonial  in  the  presence 
of  the  sacrament.  In  the  Caeremoniale  Episcoporum  of 
1600  the  new  practice  is  allowed  as  an  alternative  to  the 
earlier  custom  of  its  remaining  on  the  altar  until  mass 
was  finished.  In  the  edition  of  1651  by  the  change  of  "  vel 
etiam"  into  "et"  the  later  alternative  becomes  the  only 


xiv]  CONCLUSIONS  243 

authoritative  practice  when  a  bishop  celebrates,  and  so 
nowadays  the  consecrated  hosts  are  no  longer  allowed  to 
remain  on  the  altar  until  the  end  of  mass  except  on 
special  occasions. 

The  customs  of  low  mass  being  an  adaptation  of  those 
of  high  mass,  and  those  of  an  episcopal  mass,  it  was 
inevitable  that  sooner  or  later  at  that  type  of  service  the 
priest  should  imitate  the  more  elaborate  order.  The  rule  of 
the  Ordo  Missae  of  1502  requiring  the  sacrament  to  be  put 
away  after  mass  disappeared  in  the  revised  Ritus  Cele- 
brandi  Missam  of  1570,  and  since  that  date  there  has  been 
no  definite  order  on  the  point,  though  a  rubric  added  in 
1604  provides  for  the  possibility.  In  practice  it  has  come 
to  pass  that  on  almost  every  occasion  the  hosts  to  be 
reserved  are  removed  from  the  altar  immediately  after 
the  communion  and  placed  in  the  tabernacle.  Conse- 
quently the  ancient  usage  survives  only  when  communion 
is  to  be  given  after  mass,  or  when  mass  is  said  at  an  altar 
where  there  is  no  tabernacle,  and  so  many  hosts  are  left 
over  that  the  priest  cannot  conveniently  consume  them 
himself  before  the  ablutions. 

As  the  Order  of  Communion  of  1548  was  to  be  used 
"without  the  varying  of  any  other  rite  or  ceremony  in  the 
mass"  the  consumption  of  the  remains  of  the  sacrament 
according  to  Sarum  use  would  take  place  before  the 
thanksgiving  Gratias  tibi  and  immediately  after  the 
English  Pax  which  was  the  concluding  act  in  the  com- 
munion of  the  people,  and  the  ablutions  would  follow. 
Any  hosts  to  be  reserved,  including  probably  any  surplus 
from  the  communion  which  could  not  conveniently  be 
consumed,  would  remain  on  the  altar  until  the  end  of 
mass,  when  they  would  be  placed  in  the  hanging  pyx  and 
reserved  over  the  altar. 

Under  the  First  Prayer  Book  some  change  in  current 
practice  seems  to  have  been  intended,  and  a  reversion  to 
more  primitive  use.    Certainly  when  the  sacrament  was 

16 — 2 


244  CONCLUSIONS  [ch. 

reserved  for  the  communion  of  the  sick  at  home  the 
consecrated  elements  in  both  kinds  must  have  remained 
on  the  altar  until  the  service  was  over,  and  there  are  a 
number  of  points  such  as  the  wording  of  the  thanksgiving 
and  the  use  of  the  English  communion  Pax,  which  suggest 
that  the  compilers  of  the  book  intended  this  to  be  the 
ordinary  custom,  and  that  the  latter  part  of  the  service 
should  be  said  in  the  presence  of  the  sacrament. 

In  the  Second  Prayer  Book  the  rule  is  clear,  when  we 
consider  the  history,  that  the  remains  of  both  bread  and 
wine  are  to  remain  on  the  holy  table  until  after  the 
blessing,  when  the  priest  is  to  have  them,  as  well  as  any- 
thing which  remained  unconsecrated,  to  his  own  use,  the 
revisers,  whatever  their  private  views,  thus  making  possible 
for  those  who  wished  a  return  to  the  earliest  usage  of  the 
church,  by  which  the  remains  were  consumed  by  the 
ministers  in  the  sacristy  after  the  service  or  another 
day. 

In  the  revised  Prayer  Book  of  1661  the  new  rubric  quite 
plainly  orders  that  "what  remaineth  of  the  consecrated 
elements,"  whether  much  or  little,  shall  be  placed  upon 
the  Lord's  table  and  be  reserved  there  until  after  the 
benediction:  and  as  the  rule  is  not  conditional  it  would 
seem  that  definite  provision  is  to  be  made  so  that  some 
of  the  sacrament  may  always  remain  on  the  altar  until 
after  the  blessing,  the  rubric  being  thus  in  general  agree- 
ment with  the  rule  of  the  First  Roman  Ordo  that  the 
altar  should  never  be  without  the  sacrifice  while  mass  is 
being  performed,  and  the  practice  by  which  a  piece  of  the 
Sancta  remained  on  the  altar  until  the  end  of  mass.  There 
is  now  no  possible  ambiguity  on  the  point  whether  the 
final  rubric  refers  to  the  consecrated  or  unconsecrated 
elements,  and  there  is  a  plain  direction,  based  on  the  letter 
of  the  pseudo  Clement,  and  the  words  of  the  synod  of 
Constantinople,  that  what  is  not  required  for  communion 
should  be  consumed  by  the  priest  and  other  of  the  com- 


xiv]  CONCLUSIONS  245 

municants  immediately  after  the  blessing.  The  sources  of 
this  rubric  being  concerned  with  any  chance  superfluity 
of  the  sacrament,  not  with  what  might  be  intended  for 
reservation,  it  can  hardly  have  a  wider  application,  and 
that  this  was  the  sole  purpose  of  the  rubric  comes  out 
plainly  from  the  known  intentions  of  the  revisers,  and  by 
a  consideration  of  the  discussion  which  led  to  its  adoption. 
Sparrow  makes  it  clear  that  it  was  in  this  sense  that  it 
was  accepted  by  some  at  any  rate  in  the  church,  and,  we 
may  add,  Thorndike  expressed  a  similar  opinion. 

The  latter  part  of  the  communion  service  being  neces- 
sarily said  in  the  presence  of  the  holy  sacrament,  the 
Lord's  prayer,  though  said  after  instead  of  before  the  com- 
munion to  which  it  has  always  been  an  adjunct,  fulfils 
the  requirement  of  Gregory  the  Great,  and  is  recited  over 
Christ's  body  and  blood,  in  completion  of  the  mysteries 
of  the  church,  as  Narsai  says,  and  as  an  act  of  thanks- 
giving on  the  part  of  the  sons  of  God  for  renewed  sonship 
in  Christ  in  the  communion  and  worship  of  Him  to  Whom 
we  are  thus  joined  in  fellowship  and  life,  as  the  Nestorian 
liturgy  suggests.  The  Gloria  in  excelsis  said  in  the  presence 
of  the  sacrament  becomes  an  act  of  devotion  to  "  the  Lamb 
as  it  had  been  slain,"  comparable  with  similar  forms  found 
in  various  liturgies,  when  He  is  recognised  still  as  "the 
Lamb  of  God  lying  and  sacrificed  upon  the  holy  table," 
as  well  as  an  act  of  thanksgiving.  In  the  saying  of  the 
English  communion  Pax  while  the  elements  are  still  on 
the  altar  we  have  agreement  not  only  with  one  of  the  most 
important  features  of  the  Order  of  Communion  of  1548, 
but  also  with  the  practice  of  the  Western  church  ever 
since  the  Pax,  removed  to  a  place  after  the  consecration, 
has  become  a  benediction  "with  the  power  of  His  mys- 
teries," not  merely  a  sign  of  goodwill  but  an  effectual 
token  of  "the  peace  and  communion  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ"  bestowed  in  the  sacrament,  in  the  immediate 
presence  of  which  the  blessing  is  given. 


246  CONCLUSIONS  [ch. 

The  question  of  the  ablutions,  ceremonial  or  otherwise, 
so  far  as  our  information  goes,  does  not  seem  to  have  been 
considered  by  the  revisers  of  1661,  nor  have  we  any 
evidence  that  the  practice  was  introduced  by  any  of  the 
Caroline  divines.  Their  appeal  was  not  so  much  to  old 
English  practice  as  to  more  ancient  authorities,  and  to 
the  East,  and  to  canonical  rather  than  liturgical  rules.  They 
quote  not  mediaeval  service  books  but  the  works  of  such 
authorities  as  Gratian  and  Balsamon  for  the  disposal  of 
the  remains  after  the  communion,  and  in  accordance  with 
their  interpretation  of  the  letter  of  the  pseudo  Clement 
they  are  ordered  to  be  consumed  at  the  end  of  the  liturgy 
by  the  priest  and  others  in  church.  There  was  thus  an 
intentional  break  with  mediaeval  practice,  or  rather  it 
was  not  considered,  and  any  ablutions  or  cleansing  of  the 
vessels  would  of  necessity  be  such  as  would  be  in  agree- 
ment with  the  precedent  found  for  the  consumption  of 
the  remains,  and  must  have  taken  place  after  the  service, 
probably  in  the  vestry.  If  the  mediaeval  ablutions  are 
revived,  as  is  desired  by  many,  since  they  cannot  precede 
the  consumption  of  the  remains  of  the  sacrament,  they 
too  must  follow  the  blessing.  The  time  of  a  ceremony 
definitely  ordered  in  the  Prayer  Book  cannot  be  changed 
in  order  that  the  ablutions  may  still  be  performed  at 
what  superficially  seems  to  correspond  to  the  later 
mediaeval  position;  and  in  view  of  the  great  difference 
both  in  substance  and  importance  between  the  conclusion 
of  the  Latin  mass  and  the  post-communion  part  of  the 
communion  service  in  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  such 
a  position  does  not  really  exist.  The  ceremonial  ablutions 
have  always  been  a  preliminary  to  a  more  thorough 
cleansing  of  the  chalice  and  paten  later,  and  with  few 
exceptions  this  has  always  taken  place,  as  convenience 
dictates,  after  the  service,  though  sometimes  for  greater 
reverence  as  at  Citeaux  and  St  Victor  in  church.  The 
requirements  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  are  quite 


xiv]  CONCLUSIONS  247 

in  accordance  with  what  must  have  been  the  Roman 
custom  for  over  a  thousand  years,  and  with  the  practice 
which  must  have  obtained  in  England  after  the  coming 
of  Augustine  for  nearly  five  hundred.  They  are  in  agree- 
ment too  with  the  common  usage  in  the  East  to-day,  so 
that  nothing  can  be  more  Catholic  than  what  the  rubrics 
prescribe. 


APPENDIX 

RESERVATION  AND  THE  BOOK  OF  COMMON 

PRAYER 

I. 

THE  question  of  reservation  of  the  holy  sacrament  under 
the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  in  its  various  editions  is  of 
considerable  importance,  and  as  in  the  later  versions  of  the 
book  it  is  closely  connected  with  the  interpretation  of  the 
rubrics  for  the  disposal  of  the  remains  of  the  consecrated 
elements  not  required  for  communion  it  ma}^  not  be  inappro- 
priate to  give  a  separate  treatment  of  the  whole  subject,  though 
there  will  necessarily  be  some  repetition. 

The  full  text  of  the  rubric  of  the  First  Prayer  Book  dealing 
with  the  matter  is  as  follows: 

And  if  the  same  day  there  be  a  celebration  of  the  holy  com- 
munion in  the  church,  then  shall  the  priest  reserve  at  the  open 
communion  so  much  of  the  sacrament  of  the  body  and  blood,  as 
shall  serve  the  sick  person,  and  so  many  as  shall  communicate 
with  him,  if  there  be  any.  And  so  soon  as  he  conveniently  may, 
after  the  open  communion  ended  in  the  church,  shall  go  and 
minister  the  same,  first  to  those  that  are  appointed  to  communicate 
with  the  sick,  if  there  be  any,  and  last  of  all  to  the  sick  person 
himself.  But  before  the  curate  distribute  the  holy  communion  the 
appointed  general  confession  must  be  made  in  the  name  of  the 
communicants,  the  curate  adding  the  absolution  with  the  com- 
fortable sentences  of  scripture  following  in  the  open  communion, 
and  after  the  communion  ended  the  collect,  Almighty  and  ever- 
living  God,  we  most  heartily  thank  thee,  etc. 

The  version  of  this  as  given  in  Aless's  Latin  Prayer  Book  of 
1551  is  somewhat  different.  We  read: 

But  if  it  happen  that  on  the  same  day  the  Lord's  supper  is 
celebrated  in  church,  then  the  priest  in  the  supper  shall  reserve 
so  much  of  the  sacrament  as  suffices  for  the  sick  man,  and  soon 
after  the  mass  is  ended,  together  with  some  of  those  who  are 
present,  shall  go  to  the  sick  man,  and  he  shall  first  communicate 
those  who  attend  on  the  sick  man  and  were  present  at  the  supper, 


BOOK  OF  COMMON  PRAYER      249 

and  last  of  all  the  sick  man.    But  first  let  the  general  confession 
be  made  and  the  absolution  with  the  collect  as  is  prescribed  above1. 

We  notice  that  the  first  direction  in  the  order  for  the  com- 
munion of  the  sick  is  that  the  priest  shall  reserve  as  much  of 
the  sacrament  in  both  kinds  as  will  suffice  for  the  sick  man  and 
those  who  are  intending  to  communicate  with  him,  and  this 
is  evidently  the  normal  method  of  providing  for  the  communion 
of  the  sick,  a  consecration  in  the  sick  man's  house  being  only 
for  special  cases.  "The  communion"  we  note  is  the  act  of  ad- 
ministration and  the  reception  together  with  others,  emphasis 
being  laid  on  the  point  that  there  should  always  be  a  "com- 
munion," if  possible,  and  not  a  mere  private  participation. 
Yet  when  such  a  "communion"  is  clearly  impossible,  that  the 
sick  man  may  at  least  "  receive  the  sacrament  of  Christ's  body 
and  blood,"  the  priest  may  minister  the  reserved  sacrament 
to  him  alone.  No  form  of  service  however  for  use  in  such  a  case 
is  provided,  the  thanksgiving,  in  accordance  with  the  principles 
on  which  the  First  Prayer  Book  was  drawn  up,  laying  special 
stress  on  the  fellowship  with  other  communicants  which  in 
this  case  would  be  absent.  Presumably  also  it  was  intended 
that  the  use  of  the  reserved  species  would  be  the  usual  method 
of  ministering  the  sacrament  to  permanent  invalids,  the  aged 
and  others  who  could  not  come  to  church  and  yet  were 
desirous  of  the  communion.  In  such  cases  there  would  be  no 
particular  urgency  and  they  could  wait  for  a  celebration  in 
church.  There  is  indeed  no  provision  of  a  celebration  in  a 
house  for  such  as  these — the  collect,  epistle  and  gospel,  as 
also  the  service  for  the  visitation  of  the  sick,  like  the  similar 
forms  in  the  old  manuals,  are  suitable  only  for  those  in  danger 
of  death — and  the  administration  of  the  reserved  sacrament 
is  the  only  thing  possible. 

In  the  rubrics  of  Aless's  Latin  version  of  the  First  Prayer 
Book  there  are  considerable  changes  from  the  original,  and  the 
procedure  prescribed  is  indeed  quite  different.  We  have  the 
new  idea  that  some  of  those  who  were  at  the  celebration  in 
church  should  accompany  the  priest  to  the  sick  man's  house, 

1  Scripta  Anglicana,  p.  448. 


250  RESERVATION  AND  THE 

instead  of  a  company,  of  whose  numbers  notice  had  been 
given,  awaiting  his  arrival  from  the  church,  and  these  who 
accompany  the  priest  are  to  receive  the  sacrament  with  the 
sick,  apparentty  for  the  second  time.  Union  with  the  com- 
municants in  church  is  thus  secured  as  well  as  a  real  "com- 
munion," and  some  of  the  objections  to  a  private  administration 
of  the  sacrament,  felt  in  certain  quarters  at  the  period,  are 
done  away.  The  order  prescribed  however  is  more  akin  to  that 
found,  as  we  saw,  in  Pullain's  Glastonbury  service  for  the 
communion  of  the  sick  with  the  reserved  sacrament1  than  to 
that  given  in  the  First  Prayer  Book,  which  it  professes  to  be. 
A  comparison  of  the  phraseology  of  the  two  orders  makes  it 
not  improbable  that  there  is  a  literary  connection  between  the 
two,  and  that  Aless  used  Pullain's  service,  published  earlier 
in  the  same  year,  in  a  manner  similar  to  that  in  which  he  used 
the  Latin  of  the  ancient  services  and  of  Hermann's  Consultation. 
Perhaps  it  was  the  practice  to  which  in  his  long  residence 
abroad  he  had  become  accustomed. 

Though  there  were  thus  two  different  forms  of  procedure 
put  forth  for  use  when  the  sick  were  communicated  from  the 
church,  that  of  the  Prayer  Book  itself  and  that  of  Aless,  it 
seems  probable  that  very  frequently  it  was  neither  of  these  but 
the  traditional  method  of  administering  the  reserved  sacrament 
which  was  adopted,  and  that  in  some  places,  though  not  in 
others,  there  was  continuous  reservation  in  one  kind  as  before; 
and  this  does  not  appear  to  have  been  always  prevented  by 
the  civil  authorities  as  we  might  have  expected.  Pyxes  occur 
very  frequently  in  the  inventories  of  church  goods  made  by 
the  commissioners  on  their  visitation  in  1552,  and  not  seldom 
they  were  allowed  to  be  retained.  In  some  cases  they  are 
spoken  of  as  actually  containing  the  blessed  sacrament,  as  at 
Edlesborough,  Bucks,  and  Flintham,  Notts.2  A  noteworthy 
example  is  that  of  Saffron  Walden  where  in  connection  with 
the  visitation  on  Oct.  5,  1552  we  read: 

1  See  p.  195. 

2  Public  Record  Office,  Ex.  Q.R.  Miscel.  Ch.  Goods,  1/37  and  7/82.  See 
Hierurgia  Anglicana,  Pt  II.  p.  160. 


BOOK  OF  COMMON  PRAYER  251 

Goods  delivered  for  the  ministration  of  the  divine  service.  To 
James  Cowle  and  Thomas  Marten,  churchwardens,  a  chalice  of 
silver  and  gilt,  of  xv  ounces,  a  cope  of  red  velvet,  a  carpet  of  blue 
velvet  for  the  communion  table,  and  vii  linen  cloths  for  the  same, 
a  little  round  box  to  carry  the  sacrament  in,  with  a  purse  to  put 
it  in,  and  all  the  surplices1. 

We  notice  that  this  was  within  a  month  of  the  time,  Nov.  1, 
when  the  Second  Prayer  Book  would  be  obligatory. 

The  use  of  a  pyx  in  the  form  of  " a  little  round  box"  would 
hardly  be  necessary,  or  even  particularly  useful,  if  the  sacra- 
ment in  both  kinds  was  to  be  taken  from  the  church  immediately 
after  the  service,  and  it  seems  evident  that  the  rubrics  of  the 
First  Prayer  Book,  which  clearly  as  we  have  noted  did  not 
provide  for  every  possibility,  were  not  interpreted  as  forbid- 
ding continuous  reservation.  The  Saffron  Walden  case  indeed 
suggests  that  it  was  expected  that  it  would  continue  even  under 
the  Second  Book. 

II. 

In  the  Second  Prayer  Book,  as  we  noticed,  all  reference  to 
the  practice  of  reservation  was  omitted.  It  is  remarkable 
however  in  view  of  the  strong  opinions  of  Bucer,  Peter  Martyr, 
and  others  whose  judgment  had  great  weight  in  the  revision, 
that  there  was  no  rubric  actually  forbidding  reservation,  and 
it  would  not  have  been  surprising  if  it  had  been  stringently 
condemned  as  in  Hermann's  Consultation2,  which  also  had  been 
drawn  up  under  the  auspices  of  Bucer.  Some  other  influence 
apparently  was  also  at  work,  and  just  as  in  the  case  of  the 
direction  for  the  disposal  of  the  remains  after  communion,  the 
most  extreme  line  was  not  taken.  The  only  authoritative 
references  to  the  custom  of  reservation  are  those  which 
appeared  a  little  later  in  1553  in  the  Articles  of  Religion : 

The  sacraments  were  not  ordained  of  Christ  to  be  gazed  upon, 
or  to  be  carried  about,  but  that  we  should  rightly  (duly)  use  them. 

The  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper  was  not  by  Christ's 
ordinance  kept  (reserved),  carried  about,  lifted  up,  or  worshipped3. 

1  Proceedings  of  Essex  Archaeological  Society,  N.S.  in.  p.  62. 

2  See  pp.  194-5.    Hermann,  f.  97. 

3  Articles  xxv.  and  xxvm.,  formerly  xxvi.  and  xxix. 


252  RESERVATION  AND  THE 

Both  articles  however  express  only  a  truism  to  which  the 
strongest  advocates  of  reservation  could  assent,  and  the  same 
statement,  that  there  is  no  express  ordinance  of  Christ  on  the 
subject  could  be  made  with  equal  truth  with  regard  to  infant 
baptism,  which  yet  "is  in  any  wise  to  be  retained  in  the  church, 
as  most  agreeable  with  the  institution  of  Christ l."  Both  in  the 
exhortations  and  rubrics  the  distinction  still  survived  between 
receiving  "the  holy  communion  of  the  body  and  blood  of  our 
Saviour  Christ,"  and  receiving  "the  sacrament  of  Christ's 
body  and  blood."  The  latter  might  be  possible  for  a  sick  man 
when  a  "communion"  was  out  of  the  question,  and  it  was  to 
cover  the  case  when  the  sick  man  would  receive  the  sacrament 
alone,  as  we  saw,  that  the  words  were  put  into  the  rubric  of 
the  First  Prlj^er  Book.  It  is  only  when  for  various  reasons  even 
the  delivery  of  the  sacrament  to  him  alone  is  impossible  that 
the  priest  is  to  give  instruction,  not  with  regard  to  spiritual 
communion,  for  "communion"  would  be  considered  in  such 
a  case  impossible,  but  about  the  spiritual  eating  and  drinking 
of  the  body  and  blood  of  our  Saviour  Christ.  No  provision  is 
made  for  the  reception  of  the  sacrament  apart  from  a  "com- 
munion"; but  this  was  true  even  in  the  First  Prayer  Book, 
for  though  the  possibility  is  mentioned  there,  as  we  saw,  the 
form  of  service  given  for  the  administration  of  the  reserved 
sacrament  provides  only  for  a  "communion,"  and  would  be 
unsuitable  if  no  one  communicated  with  the  sick.  Also,  as  in 
the  First  Book,  there  is  no  provision  at  all  for  invalids  or  for 
any  but  those  in  danger  of  death.  Whatever  the  intention,  the 
rubric  of  the  First  Prayer  Book  which  reads  "where  the  curate 
may  reverently  celebrate"  has  been  carefully  altered  so  as  to 
admit  the  possibility  of  reservation,  "celebrate  "  being  changed 
to  "minister."  It  will  be  well  to  give  the  rubrics  at  some 
length: 

And  having  a  convenient  place  in  the  sick  man's  house,  where 
the  curate  may  reverently  minister,  and  a  good  number  to  receive 
the  communion  with  the  sick  person,  with  all  things  necessary  for 
the  same,  he  shall  there  minister  the  holy  communion.... At  the 

1  Art.  xxvir. 


BOOK  OF  COMMON  PRAYER  253 

time  of  the  distribution  of  the  holy  sacrament,  the  priest  shall 
first  receive  the  communion  himself,  and  after  minister  unto  them 
that  be  appointed  to  communicate  with  the  sick.... When  the  sick 
person  is  visited  and  receiveth  the  holy  communion  all  at  one 
time,  then  the  priest  for  more  expedition  shall  cut  off  the  form  of 
the  visitation  at  the  psalm,  In  thee,  O  Lord,  have  I  put  my  trust, 
and  go  straight  to  the  communion. 

The  word  "celebrate"  in  the  Second  Prayer  Book  is  almost 
synonymous  with  "minister,"  as  we  can  see  from  the  exhorta- 
tions and  the  preceding  rubrics,  and  that  it  does  not  necessarily 
include  a  reference  to  the  consecration  we  shall  see  later,  but 
probably  the  fuller  meaning  is  usually  intended.  The  word 
"minister"  however  quite  obviously  need  not  include  any 
reference  to  the  consecration,  and  may  refer  only  to  the  act 
of  administration  as  in  the  rubric  following  the  collect,  epistle 
and  gospel,  and  the  rubric  of  the  First  Prayer  Book  about  the 
delivery  of  the  reserved  sacrament.  The  title  of  the  order  is 
still  "The  communion  of  the  sick,"  but  that  this  refers  strictly 
not  to  the  whole  service  but  to  the  administration  of  and 
common    participation    in    the    sacrament,    which    may    be 
ministered   with    the   reserved    elements,    is    plain    from    its 
original  use  in  the  First  Prayer  Book,  for  there  a  further  title 
was  prefixed  to  the  order  requiring  a  consecration  in  the  sick 
man's  house — "The  celebration  of  the  holy  communion  for 
the  sick."    "The  communion"  is  still  used  in  this  its  proper 
sense  very  frequently  in  the  Second  Prayer  Book,  and  means 
simply  the  double  act   of  administration  and  reception  in 
common.  The  use  of  the  reserved  sacrament,  though  no  longer 
plainly  ordered,  is  thus  in  no  way  precluded  by  the  rubrics. 
In  particular  it  would  seem,  the  direction  that  when  the  sick 
person  is  visited  and  receives  the  holy  communion  all  at  one 
time  the  priest  shall  cut  off  the  form  of  the  visitation  and  "go 
straight   to   the   communion"   could  be  interpreted   of   the 
administration  of  the  reserved  sacrament. 

We  notice  also  the  words  "a  good  number  to  receive  the 
communion  with  the  sick  person."  Even  in  time  of  plague  or 
sweat  the  insistence  on  the  idea  of  a  "communion"  is  so  great 
that  if  no  neighbours  may  be  obtained  the  minister  alone  may 


254  RESERVATION  AND  THE 

communicate  with  the  sick  so  as  to  realise  the  "communion," 
though  the  mere  receiving  of  the  sacrament  of  Christ's  body 
and  blood  is  recognised.  Apparently  the  priest  is  to  com- 
municate at  every  "communion"  of  the  sick  though  not 
necessarily  at  every  administration  of  the  sacrament,  and  so 
the  chief  advantage  of  using  the  reserved  sacrament  on  such 
an  occasion  would  be  a  saving  of  time. 

If  the  whole  service  was  ever  intended  to  be  used  for  the 
sick,  the  rubrics  were  not  so  interpreted  later ;  and  certainly 
nothing  is  said  about  the  amount  to  be  used:  if  there  was  no 
consecration  it  would  be  a  minimum.  In  the  First  Prayer  Book 
there  was  a  distinct  order  to  say  the  prayer  of  consecration,  as 
there  was  also  to  reserve.  In  the  Second  Book  both  were 
omitted.  In  view  of  the  opinions  of  many  of  the  reformers 
which  repudiated  all  idea  of  consecration  as  well  as  reservation 
it  is  as  possible  to  argue  that  the  prayer  of  consecration  was 
to  be  omitted  at  the  communion  of  the  sick,  as  that  the  remains 
of  the  bread  and  wine  which  the  curate  is  to  have  to  his  own 
use  were  not  to  be  reserved.  Perhaps  both  customs  obtained 
in  different  circles,  one  party  treating  the  service  as  practically 
a  mass  of  the  presanctified  similar  to  what  was  usual  at  one 
time  on  Good  Friday,  an  interpretation  certainly  adopted  later, 
and  the  other  omitting  the  preface,  Sanctus,  and  prayer  of 
consecration,  and  reading  only  the  account  of  the  institution 
for  the  edification  of  the  assembled  company.  This  last  is 
exactly  what  is  ordered  in  Hermann's  Consultation,  which  like 
the  Second  English  Prayer  Book  is  to  some  extent  a  product  of 
Bucer's  labours.  Hermann's  order  for  the  communion  of  the 
sick  is  as  follows — exhortation,  part  of  John  vi  (with  ex- 
planation), confession  and  absolution,  creed,  prayer  for  the 
sick  person,  and  the  Lord's  prayer.  Then  we  read: 

This  being  said,  let  him  pray  for  peace  for  the  sick  man  and  all 
present.  Then  clearly  and  devoutly  let  him  recite  the  words  of  the 
supper,  The  Lord  in  that  night  in  which  he  was  betrayed,  etc.  And 
after  that  recital  let  him  deliver  to  the  sick  man  and  those  of  the 
company  present  who  have  offered  themselves,  as  is  meet,  as 
guests  at  the  table  of  the  Lord,  the  whole  sacrament  with  the 
words  which  are  written  above.    After  the  communion  let  him 


BOOK  OF  COMMON  PRAYER      255 

conclude  the  Lord's  Supper  with  thanksgiving  and  the  benediction 
as  described  above1. 

We  note  that  many  elements  of  the  public  service,  including 
the  preface  and  Sanctus,  have  disappeared,  so  that  there  is 
nothing  which  can  be  regarded  as  a  prayer  of  consecration. 
We  are  told  also  that  the  above  order  may  be  curtailed. 

III. 

Under  the  Elizabethan  settlement  it  was  the  Second  Prayer 
Book  which  with  some  alterations  was  adopted.  In  the  Latin 
version,  however,  published  by  Haddon  in  1560  with  royal 
authority,  in  the  order  for  the  communion  of  the  sick  there  is 
a  rubric  definitely  providing  for  the  reservation  of  the  sacra- 
ment.  We  read: 

But  if  it  happen  that  on  the  same  day  the  Lord's  supper  is 
celebrated  in  church,  then  the  priest  in  the  supper  shall  reserve  so 
much  of  the  sacrament  as  suffices  for  the  sick  man,  and  soon  after 
the  supper  is  ended,  together  with  some  of  those  who  are  present, 
shall  go  to  the  sick  man,  and  he  shall  first  communicate  (with) 
those  who  attend  on  the  sick  man  and  were  present  at  the  supper, 
and  last  of  all  (with)  the  sick  man.  But  first  let  the  general  con- 
fession be  made,  and  the  absolution  with  the  collect  as  is  pre- 
scribed above2. 

We  note  that  the  rubric  is  practically  a  reproduction  of  that 
of  Aless's  Latin  Prayer  Book,  which,  as  we  saw,  is  a  modification 
of  that  of  the  First  Prayer  Book,  chiefly  by  the  addition  of 
the  direction,  perhaps  from  Pullain's  Glastonbury  service,  re- 
quiring some  of  the  congregation  in  church  to  accompany  the 
priest  to  the  sick  man's  house,  the  only  alterations  being  the 
substitution  of  " supper"  for  " mass,"  and  "communicate  with  " 
for  "communicate."  The  former  shows  that  the  reintroduction 
of  the  rubric  in  1560  was  not  altogether  unintentional.  Whether 
the  latter  means  that  the  priest  is  to  receive  the  sacrament 
a  second  time  or  not  is  perhaps  doubtful,  for  "he  shall  com- 
municate  with"   (" communicabit  cum  illis")  may  only  be 

1  Hermann,  f.  98  b. 

2  Liturgical  Services  of  Queen  Elizabeth  (Parker  Society),  p.  404. 


256  RESERVATION  AND  THE 

intended  as  better  Latin  for  "he  shall  communicate"  ("com- 
municabit  eos"),  but  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  members 
of  the  congregation  who  accompany  him  apparently  receive 
the  sacrament  a  second  time  and  the  rubric  of  the  Second 
Prayer  Book  requiring  the  priest  always  to  communicate  first, 
it  is  not  improbable.  Though  the  directions  are  practically 
those  of  the  First  Prayer  Book,  as  the  Second  Book  says 
nothing  about  what  parts  of  the  service  were  to  be  used  at  a 
private  communion,  the  order  does  not  seem  to  be  impossible 
as  an  exposition  of  what  might  be  done  under  the  rubrics  of 
that  book  broadly  interpreted,  if  the  communion  were  given 
with  the  reserved  sacrament.  It  seems  indeed  not  unlikely 
that  this  was  a  common,  perhaps  the  official,  gloss  on  the 
directions  of  the  Second  Prayer  Book  under  the  new  conditions, 
and  was  perhaps  a  record  of  what  was  already  the  practice  in 
certain  quarters. 

That  reservation  for  the  sick  was  common  at  the  beginning 
of  Elizabeth's  reign  seems  to  be  the  only  possible  interpretation 
of  a  letter  of  Calvin,  preserved  in  substance  by  Strype,  who 
thus  explains  the  occasion: 

The  mention  of  Calvin  must  bring  in  a  very  remarkable  letter 
which  he  wrote  in  the  month  of  August  this  year  (1561)  concerning 
ecclesiastical  rites  used  in  our  office  of  private  prayer  newly 
established,  which  were  scrupled  by  some  of  the  English  exiles 
upon  their  return,  chiefly  because  not  used  by  the  reformed  church 
in  Geneva,  concerning  which  they  had  sent  to  Calvin  for  his 
resolution  and  judgment. 

The  first  three  of  the  questions  put  to  him  were,  whether  it 
was  expedient  after  the  public  confession  to  have  any  absolu- 
tion, concerning  the  using  of  certain  proper  words  to  every 
communicant  singly,  and  how  often  the  Lord's  supper  should 
be  administered.  The  fourth  with  the  answer  must  be  given 
in  full : 

The  fourth  query  was,  Whether  it  were  convenient  to  com- 
municate the  sick?  And  if  so  with  what  number  and  company? 
And  whether  in  this  private  communion  the  public  office  should 
be  used,  or  no  office,  but  the  consecrated  bread  only  brought  from 
the  church  unto  the  party  home  to  his  house?  To  which  Calvin 


BOOK  OF  COMMON  PRAYER      257 

gave  in  substance  this  answer.  That  the  sick  should  not  be  denied 
the  sacrament,  many  and  weighty  causes  moved  him :  for  should 
they  not  be  communicated,  it  would  be  a  very  blameworthy 
neglect  of  Christ's  institution.  But  that  when  the  sick  party  was 
to  partake,  there  should  be  some  assembly  of  the  kindred,  friends, 
and  neighbours,  that  so  there  might  be  a  distribution,  according 
to  Christ's  commandment.  And  that  the  holy  action  should  be 
joined  with  an  explication  of  the  mystery;  and  that  nothing  should 
be  done  differently  from  the  common  form  and  way  of  the  church. 
He  liked  not  carrying  the  sacrament  up  and  down  promiscuously ; 
for  the  avoiding  of  superstition  in  some,  and  ambition  and  vain 
ostentation  in  others ;  many  for  such  ends  being  apt  in  those  days 
to  come  to  these  private  sacraments.  Which  he  esteemed  a  very 
difficult  thing  to  prevent.  And  that  therefore  the  greater  judgment 
and  care  should  be  used  to  whom  they  gave  it.  And  lastly,  he 
looked  upon  it  as  a  preposterous  thing  to  bring  bread  as  holy  from 
the  church;  but  to  carry  it  in  pomp,  by  no  means  tolerable1.     s 

Though  communicating  the  sick  with  the  reserved  sacrament 
was  thus  not  one  of  the  "rites  used  in  the  English  liturgy"  of 
which  Calvin  approved,  yet  it  is  clear  that  it  must  have  been 
regarded  as  in  no  way  incompatible  with  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer,  and  indeed  a  common  practice,  or  there  would  have 
been  no  occasion  to  put  the  question  at  all.  In  neither  question 
nor  answer  is  there  mention  of  anything  but  the  bread,  sug- 
gesting the  continued  use  of  the  pyx,  as  perhaps  at  Saffron 
Walden  and  other  places,  which  apparently  was  carried  "in 
pomp."  We  note  too  the  question  about  what  service  should  be 
used,  and  in  Calvin's  reply  the  insistence  on  the  "  communion," 
and  his  emphasis  not  on  the  consecration  but  on  "an  explica- 
tion of  the  mystery"  for  the  benefit  of  the  sick. 

Anthony  Sparrow,  afterwards  successively  bishop  of  Exeter 
and  Norwich,  in  his  Rationale,  first  published  in  1657,  when  the 
rubrics  were  still  those  of  the  Second  Pra}'er  Book,  explaining 
the  order  for  the  communion  of  the  sick,  likewise  gives  it  as  his 
judgment  that  reservation  is  still  allowable: 

The  rubric  at  the  communion  of  the  sick,  directs  the  priest  to 
deliver  the  communion  to  the  sick;  but  does  not  there  set  down 
how  much  of  the  communion  service  shall  be  used  at  the  delivering 

1  Strype,  Annals  of  the  Reformation,  vol.  I.  Pt  I.  Ch.  xxi.  Oxford, 
1824,  p.  387. 

L.  E.  17 


258  RESERVATION  AND  THE 

of  the  communion  to  the  sick ;  and  therefore  seems  to  me  to  refer 
us  to  former  directions  in  times  past.  Now  the  direction  formerly 
was  this,  "  If  the  same  day...  "1. 

We  note  how  this  appeal  to  the  practice  under  the  First 
Prayer  Book  agrees  with  what  we  concluded  was  a  possible 
interpretation  of  the  rubrics  of  the  Second  Book,  and  with  what 
was  apparently  the  official  view  of  the  matter  in  the  days  of 
Elizabeth  as  set  out  in  the  rubric  of  the  Latin  Prayer  Book, 
and  also  the  common  practice  at  that  time  as  disclosed  in  the 
letter  of  Calvin. 

IV. 

The  question  of  the  lawfulness  of  reservation  under  the 
Prayer  Book  of  1661  depends  upon  the  interpretation  in  its 
revised  form  of  the  rubric  which  orders  the  consumption  of  the 
remains  of  the  sacrament.  This  runs,  as  we  noted: 

But  if  any  remain  of  that  which  was  consecrated,  it  shall  not  be 
carried  out  of  the  church,  but  the  priest  and  such  other  of  the 
communicants  as  he  shall  then  call  unto  him,  shall  immediately 
after  the  blessing,  reverently  eat  and  drink  the  same. 

From  a  literary  point  of  view  the  rubric  is  connected  with 
the  Scottish  canon  of  1636  and  the  corresponding  rubric  in 
the  Scottish  Prayer  Book  of  1637.  ^n  the  canon,  already  quoted, 
we  read: 

In  the  ministration  he  (the  priest)  shall  have  care  that  the 
elements  are  circumspectly  handled ;  and  what  is  reserved  thereof 
be  distributed  to  the  poorer  sort  which  receive  that  day ;  to  be 
eaten  and  drunken  by  them  before  they  go  out  of  church2. 

From  the  phraseology  alone  it  is  clear  that  reservation  of 
the  sacrament  in  the  technical  sense  does  not  come  within  the 
original  scope  of  the  canon,  and  that  it  has  to  do  with  reverence 
in  the  administration  of  the  sacrament  and  reverence  in  the 
disposal  of  the  surplus,  and  the  intention  was  to  prevent  the 
remnants  of  the  consecrated  bread  and  wine  being  taken  away 
by  the  communicants  for  consumption  at  home. 

1  Sparrow,  Rationale,  Ed.  Downes,  pp.  223-4. 

2  See  p.  203.    Prayer  Book  Dictionary,  p.  611. 


BOOK  OF  COMMON  PRAYER      259 

In  the  Scottish  Prayer  Book  of  1637  which  was  authorised 
before  publication  by  the  canons  of  1636  the  substance  of 
the  canon  was  incorporated,  as  we  saw,  in  the  rubric  of  the 
Second  Prayer  Book  which  deals  with  the  disposal  of  the 
remains  of  the  elements,  and  we  read : 

And  if  any  of  the  bread  and  wine  remain,  which  is  consecrated, 
it  shall  be  reverently  eaten  and  drunk  by  such  of  the  communi- 
cants only  as  the  presbyter  which  celebrates  shall  take  unto  him, 
but  it  shall  not  be  carried  out  of  the  church. 

The  directions  of  the  rubric,  as  we  noticed,  are  in  no  wise 
unprecedented  and  they  may  be  traced  back  in  part  to  the 
letter  of  the  pseudo  Clement1  through  the  Second  Prayer  Book, 
and  in  part  to  the  words  of  the  synod  of  Constantinople2 
under  Nicholas  Grammaticus  (c.  1085)  through  the  canon  of 
1636. 

(a)  The  question  about  what  it  was  which  remained,  whether 
the  consecrated  or  unconsecrated  elements  which  according 
to  the  rubric  of  the  Second  Prayer  Book  the  priest  was  to  have 
to  his  own  use,  which  had  been  so  much  discussed  by  Cosin 
and  other  Anglican  divines  of  the  seventeenth  century,  was 
clearly  determined  in  the  1661  revision.  The  addition  then 
made  however  with  the  intention  of  settling  this  point,  has 
itself  proved  to  be  ambiguous,  and  upon  its  interpretation 
depends  the  whole  question  of  the  reservation  of  the  sacrament 
for  the  sick.  Does  it  refer  to  that  portion  of  the  sacrament  which 
is  not  needed  for  the  communion  in  church,  thus  precluding 
anything  in  the  way  of  reservation,  or  does  it  refer  only  to  that 
which  is  in  excess  of  what  is  sufficient  for  those  who  are  to 
receive  the  sacrament,  whether  in  church  or  at  home,  which 
the  priest  had  in  mind,  when  taking  the  bread  and  wine  at 
the  offertory?  Historically  it  is  plain  that  the  intention  of 
the  rubric  had  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  reservation,  for 
the  point  was  never  alluded  to  in  all  the  discussion  which 
finally  resulted  in  the  new  order,  so  far  as  it  has  come  down 
to  us,  and  the  literary  antecedents  of  both  the  Scottish  and 

1  See  pp.  1 1-3.   PG.  1.  col.  484. 

2  See  p.  10.   P.G.  cxxxviii.  col.  944. 

17 — 2 


260  RESERVATION  AND  THE 

English  rubrics  were  concerned  only  with  the  disposal  of  the 
surplus  elements  not  required  for  communion.  If  all  reserva- 
tion is  now  precluded  it  must  be  by  inadvertence.  Is  the  rubric 
to  be  interpreted  in  this  sense?  What  was  the  contemporary 
interpretation?  In  view  of  the  importance  of  the  matter  it 
may  be  well  to  enquire  somewhat  fully  into  these  points  in 
the  light  of  history  and  by  comparison  with  similar  forms  found 
elsewhere. 

At  the  offertory  in  the  First  Prayer  Book  there  was  the 
rubric : 

Then  shall  the  minister  take  so  much  bread  and  wine  as  shall 
suffice  for  the  persons  appointed  to  receive  the  holy  communion. 

Here  the  question  of  sufficiency,  as  we  saw,  is  certainty  not 
limited  by  the  number  of  those  who  are  to  receive  the  com- 
munion in  church,  but  the  priest  takes  into  consideration  the 
number  of  those  for  whom  he  wishes  to  reserve,  just  as  in  the 
direction  from  the  letter  of  the  pseudo  Clement  which  is  the 
ultimate  basis  of  the  order — "Let  so  many  hosts  be  offered  on 
the  altar  as  ought  to  suffice  for  the  people1," — and  also  in  the 
allocution  to  the  subdeacon  in  Missale  Francorum2,  in  the 
pontificals  of  Egbert  and  Dunstan,  and  various  other  English 
and  continental  sendee  books3 — "Only  so  much  as  is  able  to 
suffice  for  the  people  ought  to  be  placed  on  the  altar."  In  the 
Second  Prayer  Book,  as  we  noticed,  this  rubric  at  the  offertory 
together  with  any  definite  provision  for  reservation  was  taken 
away,  apparently  because  it  was  no  longer  believed  by  the 
revisers  that  consecration  made  any  real  difference  to  the 
elements,  and  because  of  Bucer's  criticism  of  it: 

From  the  fourth  paragraph  of  this  order,  in  which  it  is  pre- 
scribed that  the  minister  ought  to  take  only  so  much  bread  and 
wine  as  will  suffice  for  those  about  to  communicate,  some  make  for 
themselves  the  superstition  that  they  consider  it  unlawful  if 
anything  of  the  bread  and  wine  of  the  communion  remain  over 
when  it  is  finished  to  allow  it  to  come  to  common  use....Conse- 

1  P.G.  i.  col.  484. 

2  Thomasius,  Opera,  vol.  vi.  p.  343. 

8  Martene,  vol.  II.  lib.  1.  cap.  viii.  Art.  xi.  Ord.  ii.  iii.  iv.  xiv.  xvii. 
pp.  34,  38,  42,  70,  84. 


BOOK  OF  COMMON  PRAYER      261 

quently  however  much  bread  and  wine  remain  from  the  communion 
there  are  yet  some  who  consider  that  the  whole  of  it  must  be 
consumed  by  themselves1. 

The  opinion  of  the  revisers  in  1661  and  also  of  the  church 
at  large  at  that  date  was  the  exact  opposite  of  this.  The  words 
of  the  pseudo  Clement  were  frequently  quoted  as  supplying 
a  rule  to  be  followed.  In  particular  we  remember  the  suggestion 
of  Cosin: 

Some  words  are  needful  here  to  be  added,  whereby  the  priest 
may  be  enjoined  to  consider  the  number  of  them  which  are  to 
receive  the  sacrament  and  to  consecrate  the  bread  and  wine  in 
such  near  proportion  as  shall  be  sufficient  for  them :  but  if  any  of 
the  consecrated  elements  be  left  that  he  and  some  others  with  him 
shall  decently  eat  and  drink  them  in  the  church  before  all  the 
people  depart  from  it2. 

We  have  here  the  substance  with  but  slightly  different 

wording  of  the  rubrics  of  the  present  Book  of  Common  Prayer 

dealing  with  the  same  points : 

The  priest  shall  then  place  upon  the  table  so  much  bread  and 
wine  as  he  shall  think  sufficient.... But  if  any  remain  of  that  which 
was  consecrated  it  shall  not  be  carried  out  of  the  church,  but  the 
priest  and  such  other  of  the  communicants  as  he  shall  then  call 
unto  him  shall  immediately  after  the  blessing,  reverently  eat  and 
drink  the  same. 

Both  Cosin  and  Sparrow  quoted  the  letter  of  the  pseudo 
Clement  as  supplying  a  rule  it  would  be  well  to  adopt3.  It  is 
remarkable  how  closely  the  rubrics  adopted  agree  with  the 
directions  of  this  letter,  where,  following  the  usual  translation, 
we  read: 

Let  so  many  hosts  be  offered  on  the  altar  as  ought  to  suffice  for 
the  people.  But  if  any  remain  let  them  not  be  reserved  until  the 
morrow,  but  be  carefully  consumed  by  the  clerks  with  fear  and 
trembling4. 

As  the  letter  of  the  pseudo  Clement  included  those  who 
would  be  communicated  with  the  reserved  sacrament  among 
those  for  whom  the  elements  were  to  suffice,  there  seems  no 

1  See  p.  188.    Scripta  Anglicana,  p.  464. 

2  See  p.  210.    Works,  vol.  v.  p.  519. 

3  See  pp.  207,  2ix.  *  P.G.  1.  col.  484.   Cf.  p.  12  above. 


262  RESERVATION  AND  THE 

reason  why  the  present  rubric,  from  a  literary  point  of  view 
its  direct  descendant,  should  not  do  the  like,  as  in  the  First 
Prayer  Book,  and  in  the  old  English  and  other  pontificals 
which  were  based  upon  Missale  Francorum  and  contained  a 
similar  order.  If  this  be  so  that  which  is  referred  to  in  the 
rubric  "If  any  remain"  would  be  what  was  not  required  to 
suffice  for  those  who  were  to  receive  the  sacrament  whether 
in  church  or  at  home.  The  direction  would  then  correspond 
exactly  with  the  answer  of  the  synod  of  Constantinople  to 
the  monks,  which  cannot  be  considered  as  hostile  to  reserva- 
tion, though  we  find  it  saying,  in  words  referred  to  by  Sparrow 
as  suggesting  an  English  rubric  to  the  same  effect : 

The  fragments  of  the  consecrated  oblation  they  ought  not  to 
eat  save  only  in  the  church,  until  they  have  consumed  everything1. 

Such  an  interpretation  of  the  rubric  "If  any  remain,"  has 
the  advantage  as  we  saw  in  the  case  of  the  similar  Scottish 
directions,  of  doing  full  justice  to  the  difference  in  the  wording 
of  the  two  separate  rubrics  which  refer  to  what  remains,  that 
after  the  administration  of  the  sacrament  being  positive — 
"what  remaineth  of  the  consecrated  elements" — while  after 
the  blessing  it  is  the  conditional  form  which  is  retained — "if 
any  remain  of  that  which  is  consecrated."  The  suggestion  is 
that  though  something  must  always  remain  after  the  com- 
munion of  the  people  in  church  there  is  a  chance  that  nothing 
may  remain  which  requires  consumption  after  the  blessing. 
If  so  there  must  be  a  possibility  that  some  portion  of  the 
sacrament,  perhaps  the  whole  of  what  has  not  been  consumed, 
is  required  for  some  other  purpose,  having  indeed  been  conse- 
crated with  this  intent,  and  so  would  not  come  under  the  rubric 
for  dealing  with  what  is  superfluous.  This  purpose  could  hardly 
be  anything  else  but  the  communion  of  the  sick  or  others  not 
able  to  attend  the  celebrations  in  church. 

(b)  The  rubric  "If  any  remain"  is  not  one  of  those  which 
give  instructions  for  the  performance  of  the  service,  and  it  is 
not  concerned  with  the  administration  of  the  sacrament.  It 
is  a  direction  dealing  with  the  disposal  of  the  remains  of  the 

1  P.G.  cxxxvm.  col.  944. 


BOOK  OF  COMMON  PRAYER      263 

elements,  consecrated  and  unconsecrated,  after  the  liturgy  is 
over,  being  comparable  with  the  other  rubric  which  has  to  do 
with  the  disposal  of  the  money  collected  at  the  offertory ;  and 
the  conjunction  "but"  makes  it  plain  that  the  carrying  out  of 
church  of  the  consecrated  elements  intended  is  something 
similar  to  that  involved  in  the  curate  having  the  unconsecrated 
to  his  own  use.  The  whole  rubric  is  conditional,  and  has  to  do 
only  with  occasions  on  which  there  is  an  accidental  superfluity 
of  bread  or  wine,  whether  consecrated  or  unconsecrated.  If 
this  state  of  things  does  not  exist  the  rubric  does  not  apply, 
and  this  would  be  the  case  both  if  some  of  the  bread  and  wine 
provided  by  the  churchwardens  were  reserved  for  use  another 
day,  and  if  it  were  arranged  for  someone  to  be  communicated 
from  part  of  the  sacrament  consecrated  in  church,  whether 
it  was  reserved  for  a  longer  or  shorter  period  after  the  service 
was  over.  In  such  a  case  as  definite  provision  would  have  to 
be  made  as  for  the  communion  in  church,  and  it  would  in  no 
way  depend  upon  the  existence  after  the  administration  in 
church  of  a  merely  chance  surplus,  even  if  this  were  allowed 
under  the  rubric  which  precedes  the  Lord's  Prayer;  yet  it  is 
only  for  the  disposal  of  such  an  accidental  surplus  after  the 
service  to  prevent  abuse  that  the  rubric  provides.  In  some 
cases  as  we  saw  the  portion  of  the  host  which  according  to  the 
ancient  Roman  rule  remained  on  the  altar  until  the  end  of 
mass  was  used  for  the  communion  of  the  sick1:  only  the 
possibility  of  a  similar  use  of  "what  remaineth  of  the  conse- 
crated elements,"  which  are  required  to  be  reverently  placed 
upon  the  Lord's  Table  after  the  communion  in  church,  would 
reasonably  account  for  the  element  of  uncertainty  about  the 
existence  of  any  remains  to  be  consumed  after  the  service, 
which  is  shown  in  the  conditional  form  of  the  rubric  "If  any 
remain." 

(c)  Yet  in  accordance  with  the  rubrics  of  the  present  Prayer 
Book  as  of  the  First  Book  the  use  of  the  reserved  sacrament 
is  only  possible  on  certain  occasions.  Under  the  First  Prayer 
Book  there  were  three  methods  of  giving  the  sacrament  to  the 

1  See  Chap.  v.  above. 


264  RESERVATION  AND  THE 

sick.  (1)  The  whole  celebration  of  the  Lord's  supper,  including 
the  consecration,  might  take  place  in  the  sick  man's  house,  and 
he  would  thus  receive  the  "communion"  with  as  many  of  his 
friends  as  were  present.  (2)  The  sick  man  and  his  friends  might 
receive  the  reserved  sacrament  together,  and  thus  it  would 
still  be  a  "communion."  (3)  The  sick  man  might  receive  the 
reserved  sacrament  alone.  If  even  this  last  is  impossible,  and 
for  various  reasons  the  sick  man  cannot  "receive  the  sacrament 
of  Christ's  body  and  blood"  at  all,  the  curate  is  to  give  in- 
struction, as  we  noticed,  not  about  spiritual  "communion," 
for  in  the  sense  in  which  this  word  is  used  in  the  Prayer  Book 
it  would  be  impossible,  but  about  the  spiritual  eating  and  drink- 
ing of  the  body  and  blood  of  our  Saviour  Christ.  Spiritual 
reception  is  thus  not  looked  upon  as  in  any  way  taking  the 
place  of  the  "communion,"  but  only  of  receiving  the  reserved 
sacrament  alone.  Under  the  present  Prayer  Book,  unlike 
the  First  Book,  the  provision  of  the  order  for  the  communion 
of  the  sick  clearly  makes  the  actual  celebration  in  the  sick 
man's  house  the  normal  method  when  he  desires  a  "com- 
munion," and  it  is  possible,  but  such  a  celebration  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  (1),  is  definitely  forbidden  unless  there  are 
"three  or  two  at  the  least"  to  communicate  with  the  sick 
person,  save  when  the  sick  desires  a  "communion"  in  time  of 
plague.  At  all  times  indeed  the  possibility  of  (1)  depends  upon 
the  fulfilment  of  various  conditions.  The  sick  man  may  not 
desire  a  "communion"  or  be  able  to  bear  it,  or  any  but  the 
shortest  service.  At  certain  times  of  the  year  no  amount  of 
timely  notice  will  be  sufficient  in  large  parishes  for  the  curate 
to  arrange  a  separate  consecration  for  each  chronic  sick  person 
who  will  rightly  desire  to  receive  the  sacrament.  In  many 
cases  it  would  be  impossible  to  arrange  that  there  should  be 
"three  or  two  at  the  least"  to  communicate  with  the  sick. 
Still  in  many  places  there  is  no  "convenient  place"  where 
"the  curate  may  reverently  minister,"  and  the  whole  service 
would  be  impossible.  For  many  cases  therefore,  to  which 
(2)  and  (3)  would  apply,  the  Prayer  Book  makes  no  definite 
provision  at  all,  and  unless  many  of  the  faithful  are  to  be 


BOOK  OF  COMMON  PRAYER      265 

permanently  deprived  of  the  sacrament  recourse  must  be  had 
to  the  ancient  traditional  method  of  supplying  the  need. 
Historically  the  rubric  requiring  the  priest  to  give  instruction 
in  spiritual  reception  when  the  sick  man  cannot  "receive  the 
sacrament  of  Christ's  body  and  blood  "  refers  to  the  administra- 
tion of  the  reserved  sacrament,  though  in  the  case  of  (3),  when 
no  one  could  communicate  with  him,  even  the  First  Prayer 
Book  provided  no  form  of  service,  and  consequently  it  suggests 
the  same  thing  today.  The  instruction  about  spiritual  reception 
is  still  ordered  only  when  on  a  particular  occasion  (3)  is  im- 
possible, and  not  as  an  alternative  to  his  never  receiving  the 
sacrament  at  all.  The  use  of  the  reserved  sacrament  is  the 
only  method  of  supplying  the  need,  which  the  phraseology  of 
the  Prayer  Book  itself  suggests. 

(d)  Both  reservation  of  the  sacrament  and  a  second  com- 
munion on  the  same  day  were  contrary  to  the  ideas  of  those 
responsible  for  the  Second  Prayer  Book,  and  the  provision  for 
both  found  in  the  First  Book  disappeared.  The  reasons  for 
their  objections,  that  there  is  no  such  thing  as  a  consecration 
of  the  elements  themselves,  and  that  every  communion  must 
be  more  or  less  of  a  general  communion,  have  long  been  aban- 
doned, and  the  Prayer  Book  modified  in  consequence,  the 
traditional  confession  of  faith  in  the  sacrament  being  added 
to  the  words  of  administration,  and  the  words  "except  there 
be  a  good  number  to  communicate  with  the  priest"  altered; 
yet  no  rubric  definitely  ordering  either  reservation  or  a  second 
celebration  on  the  same  day  has  been  added.  Since  the  pro- 
vision for  two  communions  on  Christmas  Day  and  Easter  Day 
was  omitted  from  the  Second  Prayer  Book,  the  Prayer  Book 
has  arranged  for  only  one  celebration  on  any  day  even  at  the 
great  festivals,  and  the  rubrics  provide  for  no  other.  Yet 
before  the  close  of  1662,  the  year  in  which  the  revised  Prayer 
Book  came  into  use,  the  holding  of  two  celebrations  of  the 
communion  on  the  same  day  in  the  same  church  was  well 
known,  and  by  the  end  of  the  seventeenth  century  they  were 
widespread1.  At  the  present  time  indeed  the  great  majority 
of  the  communions  made  in  the  English  Church  take  place  at 

1  Legg,  English  Church  Life,  pp.  48-50. 


266  RESERVATION  AND  THE 

an  early  eucharist,  frequently  one  of  several  on  the  same  day, 
a  practice  as  abhorrent  to  the  reformers  of  the  sixteenth 
century  as  reservation,  and  equally  unprovided  for  in  the  Book 
of  Common  Prayer.  The  rise  of  this  custom  involved  a  new 
method  of  interpretation  being  applied  to  some  of  the  rubrics, 
and  in  particular  to  that  arranging  for  the  disposal  of  the 
remains  of  the  unconsecrated  elements  which  had  been  pro- 
vided "for  the  communion": 

And  if  any  of  the  bread  and  wine  remain  unconsecrated,  the 
curate  shall  have  it  to  his  own  use. 

For  any  second  celebration  of  the  holy  communion  on  the 
same  day  in  the  same  church  to  be  possible  at  all  it  really 
demands  the  addition  of  some  such  gloss  as  "when  provision 
has  been  made  for  every  administration  of  the  sacrament 
required,"  and  unfortunately  this  has  led  to  the  rubric  be- 
coming entirely  a  dead  letter,  and  so  one  of  the  most  primitive 
practices  enjoined  by  the  Prayer  Book  has  been  lost.  The  same 
gloss  applied  to  the  second  part  of  the  rubric  dealing  with  the 
consecrated  elements  would  serve  rather  to  make  the  historical 
meaning  clearer,  that  it  refers  only  to  what  is  not  required  for 
purposes  of  communion,  and  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  primi- 
tive practice  of  the  reservation  of  the  sacrament.  Yet  though 
the  traditional  method  of  providing  for  the  communion  of  the 
whole  by  a  second  celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper  on  the  same 
day  has  been  generally  adopted,  the  traditional  method  of 
providing  for  the  communion  of  the  sick  has  not  been  so  wide- 
spread; yet  neither  can  be  said  to  be  contrary  to  the  present 
doctrinal  standard  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  and  what 
is  lacking  is  only  a  definite  provision  which  was  omitted  be- 
cause of  opinions  which  the  church  has  long  since  repudiated, 
if  ever  committed  to  them. 

(e)  For  the  correct  understanding  of  a  rubric  contemporary 
practice  or  interpretation  is  of  value  as  illustrating  the  meaning 
according  to  which  it  was  accepted.  We  have  already  noticed 
the  opinion  of  Sparrow  on  the  interpretation  of  the  rubrics  of 
the  Pra)'er  Book  before  its  revision  in  1661: 

The  rubric  at  the  communion  of  the  sick  directs  the  priest  to 
deliver  the  communion  to  the  sick;  but  does  not  there  set  down  how 


BOOK  OF  COMMON  PRAYER      267 

much  of  the  communion  service  shall  be  used  at  the  delivering  of 
the  communion  to  the  sick :  and  therefore  seems  to  me  to  refer  us 
to  former  directions  in  times  past1. 

Cosin  had  also  criticised  the  inadequacy  of  the  unrevised 
rubrics  assuming  likewise  that  it  could  not  be  intended  that 
the  whole  service  should  be  used,  parts  being  unsuitable.  In 
his  Particulars  to  be  considered  we  read  : 

What  part  of  the  public  order  at  the  communion  is  to  be  used, 
and  what  omitted  (as  some  part  of  it  seems  needful  to  be),  is  not 
here  said2. 

The  new  rubrics  are  undoubtedly  much  more  definite  than 
they  were  before  the  revision,  for  now  when  certain  conditions 
are  satisfied  the  priest  is  directed  to  "celebrate  the  holy  com- 
munion beginning  with  the  collect."  Yet  it  is  impossible 
to  build  much  upon  the  alteration  from  "minister"  to  "cele- 
brate," a  change  the  exact  opposite  of  what  was  made  in  the 
Second  Prayer  Book,  though  not  at  quite  the  same  point,  and 
to  argue  that  the  consecration  is  now  definitely  ordered.  Cosin 
clearly  employs  the  word  "celebrate"  of  the  reception  of  the 
sacrament,  and  without  any  direct  reference  to  the  act  of 
consecration,  using  it  indeed  of  the  action  of  the  people.  In 
his  First  Series  of  Notes  on  the  Prayer  Book  we  read  : 

A  nd  there  shall  be  no  celebration,  etc.  except  there  be  a  great  number. 
This  was  made  against  the  Solitariae  Missae  that  the  papists  are 
nowadays  content  withal.  It  was  an  abuse  springing  up  about 
Charlemagne's  time  (it  seems),  to  have  the  priest  communicate  and 
say  mass,  though  there  were  none  to  celebrate  with  him.  Therefore 
the  council  of  Mentz  then  made  a  canon  against  it3. 

If  such  a  meaning  could  be  attached  to  the  word  "celebrate " 
by  the  revisers  it  is  plain  that  we  have  still  no  clear  direction 
for  a  consecration,  even  though  the  word  does  seem  on  occasions 
to  include  it.  This  plainly  seems  to  have  been  Sparrow's 
opinion — and  as  one  of  the  chief  revisers  it  has  special  weight 
— for  in  the  various  editions  of  his  Rationale  published  after 
the  revision  he  made  no  alteration  in  his  recommendation  of 
reservation,  suggesting  that  he  still  considered  it  allowable  and 

1  See  pp.  257-8.   Rationale,  p.  223. 

2  Works,  vol.  v.  p.  524.   Parker,  Introduction,  p.  ccxci. 

3  Parker,  p.  ccxxx. 


268  RESERVATION  AND  THE 

his  reasons  not  obsolete.  This  conclusion  is  confirmed  by  the 
fact  that  no  alteration  was  made  in  the  rubric  dealing  with 
the  occasions  on  which  the  sick  man  was  visited  and  received 
the  Holy  Communion  at  the  same  time,  for  then  the  priest  is 
still  required  to  cut  off  the  form  of  visitation  at  the  psalm  and 
"go  straight  to  the  communion,"  a  phrase  of  considerable 
ambiguity,  as  we  have  noticed,  being  used  frequently  and 
more  correctly  of  the  acts  of  distribution  and  reception,  and 
including  in  the  First  Prayer  Book  a  reference  to  the  distri- 
bution of  the  communion  with  the  reserved  sacrament.  It  is 
unlikely  that  Sparrow,  successively  bishop  of  Exeter  and 
Norwich,  and  therefore  responsible  for  the  administration  of 
the  revised  Prayer  Book,  would  continue  to  recommend  in  the 
various  editions  of  his  Rationale  a  practice  which  was  generally 
and  officially  regarded  as  forbidden  under  the  new  rubrics. 
His  attitude  indeed  he  had  already  made  clear  in  his  book,  and 
from  the  historical  point  of  view  it  is  the  only  one  possible. 
After  all  the  addition  to  the  rubric  "If  any  remain"  is  only  a 
carrying  out  of  his  suggestion,  based  he  says  upon  the  direc- 
tions of  the  pseudo  Clement  and  the  synod  of  Constantinople, 
for  the  disposal  of  the  remains  of  the  sacrament1,  and  it  is  plain 
that  he  saw  nothing  in  it  contradictory  to  his  advocacy  of 
reservation  in  the  same  book,  agreeing  thus  exactly  with 
the  only  interpretation  historically  considered  of  which  his 
authorities,  the  letter  of  the  pseudo  Clement  and  the  answer 
of  the  synod  of  Constantinople  to  the  monks,  are  capable. 
Samuel  Downes  in  his  edition  of  the  Rationale  published  in 
1722  took  occasion  to  explain  in  a  footnote  the  altered  con- 
ditions under  the  revised  rubrics2,  but  it  is  not  improbable  that 
Sparrow  himself,  who  had  assisted  in  the  revision,  is  a  more 
competent  authority  on  what  was  their  intention,  and  the 
proper  interpretation. 

Another  of  the  revisers  who  expressed  an  opinion  on  the 
matter  was  Herbert  Thorndike,  a  Prebendary  of  Westminster. 
In  his  Reformation  of  the  Church  of  England  better  than  that  of 
the  Council  of  Trent,  written  about  1670,  though  not  then 
published,  he  advocates  even  continuous  reservation.  We  read : 

1  Seep   211.  2  Rationale,  p.  223  n. 


BOOK  OF  COMMON  PRAYER      269 

And  thus  far  I  will  particularize,  as  concerning  the  eucharist 
that  the  church  is  to  endeavour  the  celebrating  of  it  so  frequently 
that  it  may  be  reserved  to  the  next  communion.  For  in  the  mean- 
time it  ought  to  be  so  ready  for  them  that  pass  into  the  other 
world  that  they  need  not  stay  for  the  consecrating  of  it  on  purpose 
for  every  one.  The  reason  of  the  necessity  of  it  for  all,  which  hath 
been  delivered,  aggravates  it  very  much  in  danger  of  death.  And 
the  practice  of  the  church  attests  it  to  the  utmost.  Neither  will 
there  be  any  necessity  of  giving  it  in  one  kind  only,  as  by  some 
passages  of  antiquity  may  be  collected  if  common  reason  could 
deceive  in  a  subject  of  this  nature1. 

Thorndike  in  this  work  is  comparing  Roman  and  Anglican 
practices,  and  is  by  no  means  unfriendly  towards  the  Church 
of  Rome,  but  however  much  he  was  inclined  to  bring  forward 
the  ideal  of  the  Church  of  England  rather  than  the  actual, 
there  could  be  no  point  in  arguing  from  that  which  was 
generally  regarded  as  forbidden.  It  would  be  an  extraordinary 
method  of  showing  that  the  reformation  of  the  Church  of 
England  was  better  than  that  of  the  Council  of  Trent  to  put 
forward  as  evidence  of  its  superiority  a  practice  which  was 
common  in  the  Roman  Church,  but  was  not  allowed  by  the 
Book  of  Common  Prayer. 

There  appear  to  be  no  opinions  of  the  revisers  in  existence 
which  take  the  opposite  view  of  reservation.  The  fact  however 
that  the  new  rubric  could  be  interpreted  as  making  reservation 
impossible  by  those  who  were  unaccustomed  to  the  practice, 
or  even  opposed  to  it,  and  who  cared  nothing  for  the  traditional 
application  of  the  words  of  the  pseudo  Clement  and  of  the 
synod  of  Constantinople,  was  realised  on  both  sides  as  early 
as  the  beginning  of  the  eighteenth  century.  We  have  already 
noticed  the  explanation  of  Samuel  Downes  in  his  edition  of 
Sparrow's  Rationale  in  1722.  In  the  Communion  Office  of  the 
Non  Jurors  published  in  1718  it  was  evidently  thought  well 
that  the  direction  should  be  altered  so  as  to  avoid  the  possi- 
bility of  any  such  wresting  of  its  meaning,  and  a  modification 
of  part  of  the  rubric  of  the  First  Prayer  Book  from  the  order 
for  the  communion  of  the  sick  dealing  with  the  matter  is 
prefixed  to  the  rubric  ordering  the  consumption  of  the  remains 

1  Ch.  xxxix.  §  4.    Works,  vol.  v.  p.  578. 


270  RESERVATION  AND  THE 

immediately  after  the  blessing,  with  the  result  that  the  scope 
of  the  rubric  is  entirely  changed.  We  read: 

If  there  be  any  persons  who  through  sickness,  or  any  other 
urgent  cause,  are  under  a  necessity  of  communicating  at  their 
houses ;  then  the  priest  shall  reserve  at  the  open  communion  so 
much  of  the  sacrament  of  the  body  and  blood,  as  shall  serve 
those  who  are  to  receive  at  home.  And  if  after  that,  or  if,  when 
none  are  to  communicate  at  their  houses,  any  of  the  consecrated 
elements  remain,  then  it  shall  not  be  carried  out  of  the  church; 
but  the  priest  and  such  other  of  the  communicants  as  he  shall 
then  call  unto  him,  shall  immediately  after  the  Blessing  reverently 
eat  and  drink  the  same1. 


We  may  now  gather  up  the  results  of  our  enquiry.  The 
practice  of  the  reservation  of  the  sacrament,  together  with  that 
of  holding  a  second  celebration  of  the  holy  communion  in  the 
same  church  on  the  same  day,  both  of  which  were  prescribed 
in  the  First  Prayer  Book,  was  omitted  from  the  Second  Book 
out  of  deference  to  the  opinions  of  certain  of  the  extreme 
reformers,  yet  not  condemned.  No  rubric  altering  the  lack 
of  prescription  of  the  use  of  the  reserved  species  has  since  been 
inserted  in  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  yet  the  omission  was 
not  regarded  as  forbidding  it,  and  in  the  days  of  Elizabeth  accord- 
ing to  Calvin  reservation  was  a  well-known  practice  and  the 
officially  authorized  Latin  Prayer  Book  recommends  reservation 
for  the  sick  in  a  rubric  slightly  modified  from  that  of  Aless's 
Latin  version  of  the  First  Prayer  Book,  and  the  practice  was 
continued  it  would  seem  up  to  the  time  of  the  Rebellion  and 
later  in  certain  circles,  for  we  find  Sparrow  in  his  Rationale 
published  in  1657  interpreting  the  absence  of  definite  directions 
about  the  amount  of  the  service  to  be  used  for  the  com- 
munion of  the  sick  as  referring  back  to  the  rubrics  of  the  First 
Prayer  Book,  and  allowing  reservation.  In  1661  on  the  re- 
commendation of  Cosin,  Sparrow  and  Wren,  an  addition,  based 
on  the  rubric  of  the  Scottish  Prayer  Book,  and  also  directly 
on  the  words  of  the  pseudo  Clement  and  the  synod  of 
Constantinople  for  dealing  with  the  residue  of  the  sacrament 

1  Dowden,  The  Annotated  Scottish  Communion  Office,  p.  321.    Hall, 
F.L.  vol.  v.  pp.  51-2. 


BOOK  OF  COMMON  PRAYER      271 

not  required  for  communion,  by  consumption  in  church,  was 
made  to  the  rubric  "If  any  remain,"  and  this  forbade,  "if 
any  remain,"  the  carrying  of  these  remains  out  of  church. 
Such  a  reverent  disposal  of  the  remains  according  to  the 
traditional  interpretation  of  the  pseudo  Clement  and  the 
answer  of  the  synod  of  Constantinople  to  the  monks,  whence 
the  wording  of  the  rubric  was  drawn,  in  no  way  touched  the 
question  of  what  was  in  their  days  the  universal  custom  of 
reserving  the  sacrament  for  the  sick,  and  Sparrow  was  clearly 
of  the  same  opinion,  for  in  his  Rationale,  after  the  insertion 
of  the  new  rubric  as  well  as  before,  he  advocated  both  the 
practices  which  are  supposed  to  be  contradictory.  The  same 
view  was  evidently  taken  also  by  Thorndike  another  of  the 
revisers  who  advocated  reservation,  while  there  appears  to 
be  no  opinion  of  any  reviser  to  the  contrary.  The  order  for 
the  communion  of  the  sick,  like  that  for  the  visitation  of  the 
sick,  is  only  possible  on  occasions,  being  intended  as  is  plain 
for  the  dying  and  those  in  danger  of  death,  and  not  for  chronic 
invalids  or  the  like,  and  the  conditions  for  its  use  are  such  as 
can  seldom  be  satisfied.  The  recommendations  that  when  the 
sick  man  is  visited  and  receives  the  communion  at  the  same 
time  the  priest  should,  instead  of  saying  the  psalm,  "go  straight 
to  the  communion,"  and  that  when  the  sick  man  does  "not 
receive  the  sacrament  of  Christ's  body  and  blood,"  not  when 
he  cannot  receive  the  "communion,"  the  priest  should  instruct 
him  about  spiritual  reception,  both  originally  referring  to  the 
possible  use  of  the  reserved  sacrament  and  worded  accordingly, 
suggest  a  return  to  this  ancient  practice  of  the  church  to  supply 
the  many  cases  for  which  the  Prayer  Book  makes  no  provision ; 
and  such  a  practice  alone  gives  point  to  the  difference  of  wording 
of  the  two  rubrics  before  the  Lord's  Prayer,  and  at  the  end  of 
the  service  with  respect  to  what  remains  at  the  two  points. 
That  reservation  has  not  been  so  widely  adopted  for  the  sick 
as  a  second  celebration  the  same  day  has  been  for  the  com- 
munion of  the  whole  seems  to  depend  ultimately  on  other 
considerations  than  the  wording  of  the  rubric  "  If  any  remain," 
the  first  portion  of  which,  if  interpreted  in  the  same  way,  would 
forbid  two  celebrations  in  a  church  on  any  day;  and  the  ex- 


272      BOOK  OF  COMMON  PRAYER 

planation  of  the  rubric  would  appear  to  be  rather  a  consequence 
of  the  general  disuse  of  reservation  in  days  when  a  low  view 
was  taken  of  the  necessity  of  the  communion  of  the  sick,  and 
not  the  disuse  of  reservation  a  consequence  of  the  rubric.  Had 
"the  practice  been  general  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  any  one 
reading  the  rubric  would  have  imagined  it  was  forbidden,  any 
more  than  that  a  second  celebration  is  forbidden  by  the  same 
and  other  rubrics.  Few  writers  seem  to  have  approached  the 
matter  from  the  purely  historical  point  of  view,  and  the  tradi- 
tion of  centuries  in  the  interpretation  of  the  directions  of  the 
pseudo  Clement  and  of  the  synod  of  Constantinople,  the 
basis  of  the  rubric,  has  been  generally  ignored,  though  a  similar 
interpretation  of  the  words  referring  to  the  unconsecrated 
remains,  which  can  boast  no  such  precedent,  has  passed  without 
question,  and  the  holding  of  two  celebrations  on  the  same  day 
has  been  common  since  the  end  of  the  seventeenth  century. 
A  communion  of  the  sick  in  which  all  the  conditions  laid  down 
by  the  rubrics  were  fulfilled  must  have  been  at  any  period 
comparatively  rare,  but  it  is  a  curiosity  of  interpretation  that 
while  private  celebrations  of  the  holy  communion,  held  at  the 
suggestion  of  the  curate  and  not  after  timely  notice  given  to 
him,  for  invalids  and  others  not  in  danger  of  death,  with 
nothing  whatever  prepared  by  the  sick  man  or  his  friends, 
without  the  required  number  of  communicants,  and  with  a 
different  collect,  epistle,  and  gospel,  on  each  of  which  points 
the  Prayer  Book  directions  are  very  precise,  should  have  been 
considered  as  quite  legitimate,  while  a  communion  with  the 
reserved  sacrament  against  which  the  Prayer  Book  says 
nothing  should  have  been  so  often  regarded  as  entirely  for- 
bidden. It  might  have  been  thought  that,  even  on  the  inter- 
pretation of  "If  any  remain"  which  ignores  the  long  history 
and  traditional  interpretation  of  the  source  of  the  rubric,  and 
the  intentions  of  some  at  any  rate  of  the  revisers  to  the  same 
effect,  apart  from  controversy  there  would  have  been  at  least 
as  much  freedom  in  one  case  as  in  the  other. 


INDEX 


Abingdon,    Edmund    of,    Abp    of 

Canterbury,  138,  153 
Abu'l  Bircat,  23 
Adai  and  Mari,  SS.,  Liturgy  of,  26, 

197 
Adalbert,  St,  Bp  of  Prague,  37,  67 
Admonition  of  the  pseudo  Leo  IV, 

Synodical,     56,     98-9,     119-23, 

127,  139,  149,  169,  215,  239 
Agnus  Dei,  66,  82,  129, 187-8,  227- 

8,236 
Alcuin,  Pseudo,  37,  53,  66-7 
Aless,    Alexander,    Latin    Prayer 

Book  of,  195.  199,  248-50,  255, 

258,  270 
Alexander  of  Hales,  Glos.,  131,  150 
Alexius  Comnenus  I,  10 
Alfred's  Trans,   of  Bede's  Eccles. 

Hist.,  40 
Alnwick  Castle,  162 
Amalarius,  Ecloga  of.    See  Ecloga 

of  Amalarius 
Amalarius   of   Metz,    52-3,    65-6, 

«7 
Amand,    St,    Ordo    of    Abbey  of, 

50-1.  53.  55.  68,  76,  82,  125,  239 
Ambrosian  Rite,  96,  146,  175 
Andrews,  St,  Diocese  of,  166,  170 
Angers  Missal,  46 
Anianus,  Bp  of  Bangor,  Pontifical 

of,  154,  170 
Antidoron,  30-2 
Antoninus  Pius,  1 
Apostolic  Constitutions,  7,  16,  209 
Aquinas,  St  Thomas,  18,  41,  72-3, 

131,  207 
Arabic  Canons  of  Nicaea,  8,  14 
Arbuthnott  Missal,  166 
Aridius,  St,  48 
Aries,  Pontifical  of,  61 
Armariolum,  81,  84-5,  135-6 
Armenian  Rite,  33,  235-6 
Arsenal  Library,  Paris,  80,  155 
Articles  of  Religion,  251-2 
Articles  to  be  followed,  etc.  (1549), 

176-7,  221 
Athanasius,  St,  Canons  of,  15-6 
Augustine,  St,  Abp  of  Canterbury, 

247 

L.  E. 


Augustine,  St,  Bp  of  Hippo,    5 
Augustinian  Ordinate  of  Holyrood, 

79,  97 

Austin     Friars,     196,     203.      See 

Strangers'  Church 
Austria,  33 
Avignon,  84,  97,  241 
Avranches,  John  of.    See  John  of 

Avranches 

Bacon,  Nicholas,  Lord  Keeper,  199 
Balsamon,  Theodore,   10-11,  211, 

246 
Bancroft,  Richard,  Abp  of  Canter- 
bury, 210 
Bangor,  Use  of,  154,  158 
Baptistery,  118,  121,  123 
Barberini  MS.,  28 
Barsalibi,  Dionysius.    See  Diony- 

sius  Barsalibi 
Basil,  St,  Coptic  Liturgy  of,  23 
Basil,  St,  Liturgy  of,  28,  29 
Baxter,  Richard,  219,  221,  225 
Baxter's  Liturgy,  219-22,  228,  230 
Bayeux,    106.     See   Councils   and 

Synods 
Bayswater,  Greek  Church  in,  30 
Beauvais,  Ordo  of,  61 
Bee,  Customs  of,  78,  86 
Becon,  Thomas,  197,  208,  228 
Bede,  Ecclesiastical  History  of,  40 
Bede,  Penitential  of,  43 
Benet,  St,  Church  of,  Paris,  48 
Benignus,   St,   of  Dijon,   Customs 

of,  36,  60,  77-8,  101-2,  135 
Bernold  of  Constance,  Micrologus 

of,  69,  82 
Beroldus,  Ordo  of  (Ambrosian),  96 
Besancon,  Ordo  of,  61 
Birkbeck,  the  late  Mr  W.  J.,  31-2 
Black  Rubric,  217 
Blasien,  St,  MS.  of,  125 
Bobbio  Missal,  174-5 
Bobbio,  Penitential  of,  43 
Bodleian  Library,  Oxford,  159-60, 

168-9 
Bologna,  Customs  of,  108 
Bologna,  Library  of  University  of, 

80,  155,  160,  162,  169 

18 


274 


INDEX 


Bonner,  Edmund,  Bp  of  London, 

182 
Bourges  Cathedral,  48 
Boys  consume  remains  of  eucha- 

rist,  9,  15,  26-7,  35-6,  43,  238-9 
Brandenburg  Order,  178 
Brescia  Rituale,  112 
Brevint,  Daniel,  Dean  of  Lincoln, 

225,  237 
Brixen  Sacerdotale,  113 
Bucer,  Martin,  177,  183-4,  187-9, 

191-4,  196,  201,  228,  251,  254, 

260 
Bullinger,  Heinrich,  196,  199 
Burchard,  Bp  of  Worms,  38 
Burchard,  John,  Papal  Master  of 

Ceremonies,  109,  113,  116,  141- 

2,  241 
Burnet,    Thomas,    Prebendary   of 

Salisbury,  227 
Bute,  Marquess  of,  25 
Byzantine  Rite,  33.    See  Chrysos- 

tom,  St,  Liturgy  of,  etc. 

Caeremoniale  Episcoporum,  93,  95, 

1 1 1-2,  116,  242 
Caesarius,  St,  Bp  of  Aries,  5 
Cajetan,  James,  83,  85 
Calosyrius,  Bp  of  Arsinoe,  6,   14, 

17,  189,  207 
Calvinists,  Customs  of,  203,  205 
Calvin,  John,  199,  218,  256-8,  270 
Cambridge     University     Library, 

156 
Canons  of  1604,  202,  210 
Canons  of  1636,   Scottish,   203-4, 

212 
Canterbury,     Abp     of      (Edward 

White  Benson),  215 
Carmelite  Rite,  85,  97,  105-6,  in, 

145-6,  241-2 
Caroline  divines,  246.    See  names 

of  individuals 
Carthusian    Rite,    77,     106,     129, 

145-6 
Catalani,  Joseph,  112 
Catalogue   of   Bishops   of   Rome, 

48-9 
Catechism    of    Russian    Church, 

Longer,  234 
Cantelae  Missae,  115 
Censura  of  Bucer,   177,   183,   188, 

191-2,  194,  260 
Chaldaean  Uniats,  Rite  of,  33 
Charles  I,  204,  209 
Charles  II,  229,  236 
Charles  the  Great,  35,  207,  267 


Chartres,  Use  of,  145-6 
Chrysostom,  St,  Abp  of  Constanti- 
nople, 228,  237 
Chrysostom,    St,    Liturgy   of,    22, 
28-32,  216,  232-3,  235-7 

Cistercian  Rite,   103-4,   122,    134, 
.241,  246 

Clement,  Letter  of  the  pseudo,  11- 
18,  37,  40-3,  98,  118-22,  139, 
182,  189-91,  193,  204,  206-7, 
211,  239,  244,  246,  259-61, 
268-72 

Clement,  St,  Liturgy  of,  7 

Cluny,  Constitutions  of,  36,  76-8, 
101-2,  116,  122,  135,  149 

Codex  Ratoldi,  125-6,  239-40 

Codex  Tilianus,  173 

Colbertine  MS.  Penitential,  Biblio- 
theque  Nationale,  Paris,  43 

Colbertine  MSS.,  Bibliotheque  Na- 
tionale, Paris,  43,  45,  47,  63 

Colewich,  or  Colwich,  Staffs,  158 

Columban,  St,  Rule  of,  42 

Commemoration  of  Sacrifice  of 
Christ,  218-25 

Common  Prayer,  Book  of.  See 
Prayer  Book 

Communion  of  sick.  See  Viaticum 

Communion  Pax,  173,  175-6,  179, 
181,  243-5 

Conditorium,  45 

Consecration  of  elements,  67,  99, 
180,  188-9,  191>  199-202,  204, 
207-13,  219-20,  222-4 

Constantinople,  9,  26-7.  See 
Councils  and  Synods 

Constitutions,  Apostolic,  7,  16,  209 

Constitutions  ( English ),  Anon. ,  138, 

154 
Consuetudinary  (or  Ordinate),  79, 

80,   116,    151,    156-7,    166,   170, 

242 
Consuetudinary  of  Exeter,  151 
Consuetudinary  of  Salisbury,  151, 

156-7,  166,  170 
Consuetudinary  of  Wells,  151 
Coptic  Constitutions,  8,  15 
Coptic  Liturgy,  23 
Coptic  Liturgy  of  St  Basil,  23 
Coptic  Rite,  8,  15,  19,  23,  25 
Coptic  Uniats,  Liturgy  of,  25 
Corbie,  Ordinary  of,  36 
Corbie,  Ordo  of  Monastery  of,  60, 

67,  76 
Corinthians,  First  Epistle  to,  9 
Corpus    Christi    College,    Oxford, 

156,  158,  166,  169 


INDEX 


275 


Corpus  Juris  Canonici,  38,  130 
Cosin,  John,  Bp  of  Durham,  208, 

211,  213,  222-6,   259,  26l,  27O 

Cosin's  First  Series  of  Notes,  206- 

9,  222,  261,  267 
Cosin's    Second    Series    of   Notes, 

208-10,  226 
Cosin's  Third  Series  of  Notes,  209 
Cosin's  Particulars  to  be  considered, 

209,  223,  267 
Cotton  MS.,  Tiberius  C.I,  149,  169 
Councils  and  Synods : 

Aberdeen,  138,  153 

Aix-la-Chapelle,  41 

Bayeux,  35 

Bordeaux,  36 

Clermont,  35-6,  205 

Cologne,  138 

Constantinople,  10-11,  204,  206, 
211,  244,  259,  262,  268-72 

Durham,  138,  152-4,  204 

Macon  II,  9,  15,  207-8 

Mentz,  267 

Nicaea,  8,  14,  226 

Nimes,  138 

Oxford,  138,  153 

Paris,  35 

Quiercy,  65-6 

Kodomum,  36,  44 

Toledo  XVI,  36 

Tours  III,  35,  44,  207 

Trent,  no,  143,  145,  268-9 

Westminster,  138,  151,  153,  156 

Worms,  41 
Cranmer,  Thomas,  Abp  of  Canter- 
bury, no,  179,  189,  191-3-  196, 

199,  201,  216 
Crawford  Sarum  Missal,  80,  154-5, 

158,  169,  174 
Cyprian,  St,  Bp  of  Carthage,  6,  46 
Cyril,  St,  Abp  of  Alexandria,  6,  14, 

17,  189,  207 
Cyril,  St,  Bp  of  Jerusalem,  4 

Damien,  Peter,  128,  240 
Decentius,  Bp  of  Gubbio,  49,  82 
Decretum  of  Gratian,  38,  41,  64-5, 

180,  211,  246 
Despoticon,  23-4 
Didache,  46 

Didier,  St,  of  Cahors,  48 
Dionysius  Barsalibi,  20,  22 
Dionysius,  St,  191 
Directory,  Parliamentary,  218,  228 
Dominican    Rite,    104,    106,    in, 

115,  145,  241-2 
Downes,  Samuel,  268-9 


Dunstan,  St,  Pontifical  of,  39,  260 
Durandus,  William,  Bp  of  Mende, 

Rationale  of,  58,  73,  100,  132 
Durham,  Bp  of  (Nathaniel  Crewe), 

229 
Durham  Book,  212-3,  224 
Durham  Cathedral,  117 

Eastern  Liturgies,  Chapter  II,  216, 

222,  230-7 
Ecloga  of  Amalarius,  56-7 
Edgar,  Canons  under,  43 
Edlesborough,  Bucks,  250 
Egbert,  Penitential  of,  43 
Egbert,  Pontifical  of,  39,  59,  260 
Egyptian  Church  Order,  2,  3,  6,  13 
Einsiedeln  Or  do,  51-3,  82-3 
Elizabethan  Settlement,  195,  198- 

202,  209,  212,  215,  255-6,  258, 

270 
Elizabeth,    Prayer   Book  of.     See 

Prayer   Book   of   Elizabeth,   or 

James  I 
Ely,  Bp  of  (Thomas  Goodrich),  177 
Ely  House,  225 
Emmeram,  St,  atRatisbon,  Library 

of,  49 
English  divines,  11,  215,  246,  259 
Ephesus,  Eucharist  at,  1 
Epiclesis,  222 

Etienne,  St,  Rouen,  Church  of,  146 
Eucharist  buried,  8,  19,  42-3,  238 
Eucharist  burnt,  8,  9,  15,  19,  42-3, 

238 
Eulogiae,  99,  209 
Eutychiani  Papae  Exhortatio,  119 
Evagrius,  9,  26,  207 
Evelyn,  John,  229 
Exeter    Ordinate     (or    Consuetu- 
dinary), 80,  151 
Exodus,  13,  14,  183 
Ezekiel  xl,  Jerome  on,  7 

Fermentum,  48-51,  54,  57,  82-3, 

97-  24i 

Fidei  ratio  of  Zwingli,  185 

First  Prayer  Book.  See  Prayer 
Book,  First 

Flacius  Illyricus,  Mass  of,  58 

Flintham,  Notts,  250 

Fortunatus,  Venantius,  Bp  of  Poi- 
tiers, 48 

Franciscan  Use,  141 

Fulco,  St,  of  Angers,  61 

Galicia,  33 

Gallican  Councils,  9,  35-7,  239 


276 


INDEX 


Gallican  influence,  50,  54,  56,  63-4, 
69,  75,  81,  83-4,  100,  115,  124-5, 
206,  239 

Gallican  Ordines,  69,  100,  125 

Gallican  Rite,  47,  66 

Gallican  Sacramentary,  47 

Gall,  St,  MSS.,  59,  63,  174-5 

Garrard,  Master,  200 

Gattico,  J.  B.,  100 

Gaul,  9 

Gelasian  Sacramentary,  39,  40,  54, 

75 

Gemma  Animae  of  Hononus  of 
Autun,  71-2 

Gemma  Ecclesiastica  of  Giraldus 
Cambrensis,  40 

Geneva,  Reformed  Church  in,  256 

German  form  of  clinical  com- 
munion, 173 

Germanus,  Patriarch  of  Constanti- 
nople, 234 

Germanus,  St,  Bp  of  Paris,  47 

Germanus,  St,  Monastery  of  (St 
Germain  des  Pres),  Paris,  61 

Giraldus  Cambrensis  (de  Barri),  40 

Glastonbury,  French  Church  at, 
195-6,  250,  255 

Gloria  in  excelsis,  50,  184,  186,  188, 
221-2,  227-8,  230-1,  236,  245 

Gloucester  Cathedral,  117,  149 

Gonville  and  Caius  College,  Cam- 
bridge, 150 

Gorgonia,  Sister  of  St  Gregory 
Nazianzen,  v 

Grandisson,  John  de,  Bp  of 
Exeter,  80 

Grassis,  Paris  de,  Bp  of  Pesaro, 
Papal  Master  of  Ceremonies,  91, 
93,  107-8,  111-2,  143,  241-2 

Gratian,  Francis,  Decretum  of,  38, 
41,  64-5,  180,  211,  246 

Gratias  tibi,  154-9,  161-6,  168-9, 
174-6,  179 

Greek  Church,  30,  238 

Gregorian  Sacramentary,  172-3 

Gregory,  Cardinal,  Polycarpus  of, 

38 
Gregory,  St,  Bp  of  Tours,  47 
Gregory,  St,  Monastery  of,  Basle, 

58 
Gregory  III,  Penitential  of,  43 

Haddon,  Walter,  199,  255 
Hales,  Alexander  of,  131,  150 
Halitgar,  Bp  of  Cambrai,  Peniten- 
tial of,  43 
Hallel,  185-6 


Harding,  Thomas,  Fellow  of  New 
College,  Oxford,  226 

Hereford  Cathedral,  117 

Hereford  Missal,  80-1,  162,  167, 
170,  205 

Hereford,  Use  of,  150,  162 

Hermann,  Abp  of  Cologne,  Con- 
sultation of,  76,  187,  194,  250-1, 

254 

Hesychius,  9,  15,  189,  207-8 

Hincmar,  Abp  of  Rheims,  Capi- 
tular of,  1 1 9-2 1 

Hippolytus,  2 

Hippolytus,  Canons  of,  3 

Hirshau,  Constitutions  of,  102 

Holder,  Dr,  Subdean  of  Chapels 
Royal,  229 

Holyrood  Ordinale,  79,  242 

Honorius  of  Autun,  71-2 

Hooper,  John,  Bp  of  Gloucester, 
177,  183,  221 

Hugh  of  St  Victor,  71 

Humbert,  Cardinal,  19 

Imperial  Library,  Vienna,  61 

Irish  Rite,  59,  174-5 

Isidore,  Pseudo,  38 

Ivo  of  Chartres,  38,  64, 126, 130, 132 

James,  St,  Liturgy  of,  19,  230 
James,  St,  Lord's  brother,  11,  37 
James,  St,  Syriac  Liturgy  of,  22 
Jerome,  Pseudo,  11,  197,  207 
Jerome,  St,  7 
Jerusalem,  19 

Jesus  College,  Cambridge,  149 
Jewel,  John,  Bp  of  Salisbury,  197, 

208,  226 
John,  Bp  of  Syracuse,  217 
John  of  Avranches,  Abp  of  Rouen, 

70,  99,  127,  145,  149,  240 
Johnson,     Robert,     Preacher     at 

Northampton,  199-201 
Justice,  Lord  Chief,  199 
Justin  Martyr,  St,  1,  2 

King    Edward    VI,    First    Prayer 

Book    of.      See    Prayer    Book, 

First,  of  Edward  VI 
King  Edward  VI,  Second  Prayer 

Book    of.      See    Prayer    Book, 

Second,  of  Edward  VI 
King's  Majesty's  Injunctions  and 

Proceedings,  176-7 

Lacy,  Edmund,  Bp  of  Exeter, 
Pontifical  of,  78-9 


INDEX 


277 


Lando,  Bp  of  Rheims,  48 
Lanfranc,    Constitutions    of,     36, 

77-8 

Langton,  Stephen,  Abp  of  Canter- 
bury, 138,  153,  166 

Laon,  Church  at,  48 

Lasco,  John  a,  183,  187,  196,  203, 
220 

Lateran,  Church  of  the,  St  Saviour, 

50,  52,  59 
Laud,  William,  Abp  of  Canterbury, 

226 
Lawrence,  St,  Church  of,  Rouen, 

48 
Lay  Folks  Mass  Book,  150,  170 
Leofric  Missal,  40,  75 
Leonine  Sacramentary,  174 
Leviticus,  6,  9,  13-5,  126,  189,  208 
Liber  Familiaris  Clericorum,  no 
Liber  Pontificalis,  48,  187 
Liber  Sacerdotalis,  no 
Lincoln,  Bp  of  (Edward  King),  215 
Lincoln  Cathedral,  149 
Llanthony,  Abbey  of,  150 
Lombard,  Peter,  71 
London,   Bp  of  (Edwin  Sandys), 

199-201 
London,  Bp  of  (Henry  Compton), 

229 
Lord's   prayer   after  communion, 

184,  217,  225,  232,  235,  245 
Lumley,  Lord,  purchaser  of  many 

of  Cranmer's  books,  no 
Luther,  Martin,  197 
Lyndwood,    William,    Provinciate 

of,  41,  165-6 
Lyons,  Use  of,  145-6 
Lytlyngton,    Nicholas,    Abbot   of 

Westminster,  161 

Mabillon,  John,  Roman  Ordines  of, 
45>  57-   See  Roman  Ordo  I ,  etc. 

Magdalen  College,  Oxford,  Ponti- 
fical of,  78-9 

Maguelonne,  Bp  and  Cathedral  of, 
130 

Malabar  Rite,  21 

Mansionary,  50,  92-3 

Manual,  113,  156,  169 

Marcellus,  Christopher,  Bp  of 
Corcyra,  88,  90,  96,  107-8,  no, 
112,  143,  241 

Marmoutier,  Monastery  of,  Tours, 
48 

Maro,  John,  Patriarch  of  Antioch, 
20 

Maronites   20,  22 


Martial,    St,   Abbey  of,   Limoges, 

40-1 
Martin,    St,    Church    of,    in    the 

Fields,  229 
Martin,   St,  Church  of,  Leicester, 

149 
Martyr,  Peter,  193,  199,  201,  251 
Mary,  Queen,  117 
McClure   (or   Blew)   MS.   Manual, 

156 

Micrologns,  69,  82 
Middleburgh  Prayer  Book,  218 
Milan,  Use  of,  96 
Missale  Francorum,  39,  121,  260, 

262 
Missale  Mixtum,  96 
Moleon,  Sieur  de,  145-6 
Mosaic  law,  6,  13-5,  17, 42,  126,  238 
Mozarabic  Rite,  46,  96,  146 
Musculus  (Reginald  Wolf),  199 

Narsai,  Liturgical  Homilies  of,  26, 

234.  245 
Nestorianism,  207 

Nestorian  Rite,  26,  33,  197-8,  231, 

235.  245 

Nicephorus  Callistus,  26 

Nicephorus,     Patriarch    of    Con- 
stantinople, Typicon  of,  27,  29 

Nicholas  Grammaticus,  Patriarch 

of  Constantinople,  10,  259 
Nimes,  Use  of,  138-9 
Non-communicants,  228-30,  237 
Non-jurors,  269 

Odo  of  Paris  (Eudes  de  Sully),  35 
Orderic,  Canon  of  Siena,  131 
Order  of  Communion,  171— 6,  179— 

80,  194,  235,  243,  245 
Ordinate  (or  Consuetudinary),  79, 

80,   116,    151,    156-7,   166,   170, 

242 
Ordinate  of  Exeter,  151 
Ordinate  of  Holyrood,  79,  116,  242 
Ordinate  of  Salisbury,  151,  156-7, 

166,  170 
Ordinate  of  Wells,  151 
Ordo,     First     Roman,     etc.      See 

Roman  Ordo  I,  etc. 
Ordo  Missae  of  Burchard,  109-10, 

113,  116,  142,  243 
Ordo  of  St  Amand.    See  Amand, 

St,  Ordo  of  Abbey  of 
Origen,  4-6,  13,  207 
Osmund,  St,  Bp  of  Sarum,  149 
Oswestry,    Missal   of   Church    of, 

158-61,  166 


278 


INDEX 


Overall,  John,  Bp  of  Durham,  222 

Pardoner's  Churchyard,  no 

Parliamentary  Directory,  218,  228 

Paschal  Chronicle,  27 

Pastophorium,  7,  207 

Paten,  Ablution  of,  20-1,  24-5,  29, 
31,  127,  133-4.  136-7.  152-3,  240 

Patricius,  Bp  of  Pienza,  88,  go,  96, 
107-12,  121-2,  143,  241 

Paul,  St,  1,  9,  187 

Paul,  St,  Cathedral  of,  London, 
182 

Pax,  Communion.  See  Com- 
munion Pax 

Pearl  (fragment  of  sacrament), 
30-1 

Peru M  annate,  113 

Peter  Damien,  128,  240 

Peter  Lombard,  71 

Peter  Martyr,  193,  199,  201,  251 

Petri,   Laurence,   Abp  of  Upsala, 

197 

Philotheus,  Patriarch  of  Con- 
stantinople, 29 

Piscina,  123,  129,  132,  134,  146-7, 
149,  240.  See  Sacrarium  and 
Place  (for  pouring  ablutions) 

Place  (for  pouring  ablutions),  119- 
20,    122-3,   I26,    128,    130,   132, 

139,  147.  149.  151.  240 
Polycarpus  of  Cardinal  Gregory,  38 
Poor,  Richard  le,  Bp  of  Salisbury, 

138,  153 
Popes  of  Rome : 
Benedict  XII,  85 
Clement  I.  See  Clement,  Letter 
of  the  pseudo,  and  Clement, 
St,  Liturgy  of 
Clement  VI,  85 
Clement   VIII,    93,    95,    n  1-3, 

144-5 
Eutychianus,  119 
Gregory  the  Great,  40,  184,  217, 

245 
Gregory  III,  43 
Gregory  XI,  85 
Innocent  I,  49,  82 
Innocent  III,  71,  130-2,  150 
Innocent  VI,  85 
Innocent  VIII,  107 
Innocent  X,  112 
John  XXII,  85 
Leo  IV.    See  Admonition  of  the 

pseudo  Leo  IV,  Synodical 
Leo  X,  112 
Leo  XIII,  33 


Popes  of  Rome  (cont.): 

Miltiades,  48 

Pius  V,  92,  no,  116,  145 

Sergius  I,  64-6,  71-3,  187 

Siricius,  49 

Sixtus  IV,  90,  97 

Urban  V,  85 

Urban  VI,  85 

Urban  VIII,  145 
Prayer  Book,  181,  196-7,  203,  214, 

230,  232,  235,  248,  264-6,  270 
Prayer  Book,  First,  of  Edward  VI, 

no,   175,   177-8,   180-3,   186-8, 

191,   193-6,   198-9,  201,  214-5, 

220,  222-4,  228,  236,  243,  248- 

56,  258,  260,  262-5,  268-70 
Prayer  Book,  Second,  of  Edward 

VI,  183-4,  187-8,  191-2, 194-5. 

198,    201,    204,    206,    208,    212, 

228,  244,  251,  253-60,  265,  267, 

270 
Prayer    Book    of    Elizabeth,     or 

James  I,   198-201,  206,  208-9, 

211-2,  215,  219,  221-4,  226,  229, 

257 
Prayer  Book  of  Charles  II,  1,  196, 

213,  217,  224-5,  227-8,  230,  232, 

235-7,    244,    246,    258,    260-1, 

263-6,  268-9,  271-2 
Prayer  Book  of  Kirk  of  Scotland, 

218 
Prayer  Book,  Puritan,  218 
Prayer  Book,  Scottish,  204-6,  208, 

212,  214,  218,  258-9,  262,  270 
Prothesis,  28-32,  216,  233-4,  238 
Provinciate  of  William  Lyndwood, 

41,  165-6 
Pullain,  Valerand,  195-6,  250,  255 
Puritans,  218-9,  223-4 
Pyx,  19,  45-8,  52,  56,  71,  83,  88, 

102-7,109-11,113-4,116-7,  145, 

228,  242-3,  250-1,  257 

Questions  and  Answers  according 
to  the  Doctrine  of  the  Fathers 
(Coptic),  24 

Ratherius,  Bp  of  Verona,  119 
Regino    of    Priim,    38,    56,    98-9, 

119-22 
Remi,  St,  Codex  of,  172,  175 
Remigius,  Bp  of  Coire,  38 
Remigius  of  Auxerre,  66-7 
Remigius,  St,  Abp  of  Rheims,  148 
Renaudot,  Eusebius,  3,  22-3,  25 
Rhabanus  Maurus,  66 
Kheims  Missal,  46 


INDEX 


279 


Rheinau,  Penitential  of,  43 
Ridley,  Nicholas,   Bp  of  London, 

177,  221 
Ritus    Servandus    in    Celebratione 
Missarum,  or  Ritus  Celebrandi 
Missam,   no,   112-3,   116,   144, 

243 
Riva,  Missal  of  Bp  of,  61 
Robert  of  St  Victor,   Penitential 

of,  43 
Rochester,  Bp  of  (Francis  Turner), 

229 
Rock  MS.  Manual,  156 
Roman  Catholics,  210 
Roman  Missal,  43,  87,  92,  95-6, 

no,  113,  116,  141,  143-6,   158, 

197,  221 
Roman  Ordines,  46,  52-3,  58,  61, 

65-7.  69,  82,  87,  99,   100,   102, 

112,  125,  132,  165 
Roman  Ordo,  Common,  of  Hittorp, 

59-61,  67 
Roman  Ordo  I,  45,  50,  52,  54,  56-8, 

61,  65,  75,  82,  U2,  118,  123-5, 

205,  214,  217,  244,  263 
Roman  Ordo  I ,  Appendix,  54,  75, 

99.  124 
Roman  Ordo  II,  52,  56-8,  61,  119, 

124 
Roman  Ordo  III,  58,  64, 119,  124-5 
Roman  Ordo  IV,  57,  64 
Roman  Ordo  V,  64 
Roman  Ordo    VI,    100,    107,    115, 

125-6,  240 
Roman  Ordo  X,  82-5, 106,  128, 132, 

140 
Roman  Ordo  XIV,  81,  83-5,  139 
Ro man  Ordo  XV,  Si,  84-5 , 1 00, 1 40 
Roman  Pontifical,  88,  12 1-2 
Roman  Ritual,  107,  114 
Romsey  Abbey,  Hants,  149 
*>#Rouen,  Use  of,  127,  145-6,  149-50, 

170,  240-1 
Russian  Rite,  31-2,  234 
Ruthenian  Rite,  33 
Ryarsh,  Kent,  149 
Rylands  Library,  Manchester,  80, 

154 

Sacrarium,  129,  155-62,  164-9. 
See  Piscina  and  Place  (for 
pouring  ablutions) 

Sacred  Ceremonies  and  Ecclesi- 
astical Rites  of  the  Holy  Roman 
Church,  of  Patricius,  107 

Sacristy,  or  Vestry,  7,  9,  12-4,  16, 
27-8,  34.  39,  4°.  43-4,  54-   75. 


82-3,  96,  119-20,  122,  127,  147, 
190,  193.  208,  215,  238-9,  244, 
246 
Saffron  Walden,  Pyx  at,  250,  257 
Sahidic  Ecclesiastical  Canons,  7 
St  Gall  MSS.,  59,  63,  174-5 
Salisbury  Cathedral,  157 
Salzburg,  Pontifical  of,  173 
Sancroft,    William,    Chaplain    to 
Cosin  (Abp  of  Canterbury  1678), 
212,  225 
Sancroft's  Fair  Copy,  212 
Sancta,  Chapter  iv,  83,  238,  244 
Sanctum,  46 

Sarum  Consuetudinary   (or  Ordi- 
nate), 151,  156-7,  166,  170 
Sarum    Customary,     156,     158-9, 

161,  163,  165-6,  168-9,  170 
Sarum  Manual,  156,  169 
Sarum    Missal,    43,    80-1,    115-6, 
154-6,    158-9,    161-2,    166-70, 

173-5.  243 

Sarum    Ordinale    (or   Consuetudi- 
nary), 151,  156-7,  166,  170 

Saviour,  Church  of  the,  Lateran, 

50,  52.  59 
Savoy  Conference,  219,  222 
Scottish  Canons  of   1636,   203-4, 

212,  258-9 

Scottish  Prayer  Book.   See  Prayer 

Book,  Scottish 
Scutella,  101,  102-3,  r35 
Second  Prayer  Book.    See  Prayer 

Book,  Second 
Sens,  Pontifical  of,  61 
Sherborne,  Church  of,  162 
Sibbald,  James,  Vicar  of  Arbuth- 

nott,  166 
Sidney  Sussex  College,  Cambridge, 

163,  166 
Siena,  Order  of  Offices  at,  131 
Sigibert,  Constitutions  of,  76 
Simeon  of  Thessalonica,  234 
Soissons  Cathedral,  106,  117,  132 
Sparrow,  Anthony,  Bp  of  Exeter 

1667,   Norwich   1676,   204,  211, 

213,  245,  257,  261-2,  266-71 
Stowe  Missal,  174-5 
Strangers'  Church,  Austin  Friars, 

187,  196,  203 
Strasburg,  French  Church  at,  195 
Strype,  John,  Historian,  256 
Sweden,  Church  of,  197 
Synods.    See  Councils  and  Synods 
Syriac  Liturgy  of  St  James,  19-21, 

33.  231 
Syrian  Jacobites,  Rite  of,  21-2,  33 


280 


INDEX 


Syrian  Jacobites,  Uniats,  Rite  of, 
33 

Tenison,  Thomas,  Rector  of  St 
Martin's  in  the  Fields  (Bp  of 
Lincoln  1692,  Abp  of  Canterbury 
1695),  229 

Tertullian,  2,  6,  46 

Testament  of  our  Lord,  3 

Thanksgiving  after  communion, 
20-2,  26,  28-30,  32-3,  126,  174- 
6,  178-81,  184-6,  188,  195, 
221-2,  230-2,  236-7,  243-5, 
248-9,  255.    See  Gratias  tibi 

Theodore,  Abp  of  Canterbury, 
Penitential  of,  43 

Theodore,  St,  of  the  Studium,  233 

Theophilus,  Bp  of  Alexandria, 
10-1,  211 

Third  part  of  the  host.  Chapter  v, 
104,  107,  115,  239 

Thomas,  St,  Christians  of,  21 

Thorndike,  Herbert,  Prebendary 
of  Westminster,  245,  268-9,  271 

Tirpinus,  Abp  of  Rheims,  Ponti- 
fical of,  59 

Tower  (for  sacrament),  47-8 

Tuki,  Ralph,  Bp  of  Arsinoe,  25 

Turner,  Francis,  Bp  of  Rochester, 
229 

Ubertus,  128 

Ulrich,   Abbot  of  Cluny,   36,    77, 

IOI-3,   122,   I35,   I49 

Ulrich,  Bp  of  Augsburg,  119 
Unconsecrated  oblations,  10-2,  14, 

16,  30-2,  35-6,  99,  197,  207,  209, 

211 
Uniats,  20,  25,  33 
University  College,  Oxford,  162-3 

Val  des  Choux,  Abbey  of,  Bur- 
gundy, 104 


Verdun,  Church  of,  58 

Vernon  MS.,  151 

Verona    Fragments    of    Egyptian 

Church  Order,  3 
Vestry.    See  Sacristy 
Viaticum,  and  Communion  of  sick, 

37,  40-1,  56,  65,  67,  70-1,  73-4, 

86-7,95,  172-3.  i78-9,  181,  194- 

6,  248-9,  250-72 
Victor,   St,   Abbey  of,   Paris,   41, 

122,  133-4,  241,  246 
Victor,  St,  Robert  of,  Penitential 

of,  43 
Vienna,  33,  61 

Vienna,  Imperial  Library  of,  61 
Visible  Word,  218 
Vito,   St,   of  Verdun,   Penitential 

of,  43 

Waldegrave,  Robert,  Printer,  218 
Wells,    Consuetudinary   (or   Ordi- 
nate), 151 
Westminster  Abbey,  161 
Westminster,    Dean    of    (Gabriel 

Goodman),  199-201 
Whitehall,  Chapel  at,  229 
William,  Abbot  of  Hirshau,  102 
Wolf,  Reginald  (Musculus),  199 
Wren,  Matthew,  Bp  of  Ely,  211, 

213,  224,  228,  270 
Wylson,  Doctor,  201 

Ximenes,  Francis,  Cardinal,  96 

York  Breviary,  163,  166 
York  Minster  Library,  163 
York    Missal,    43,    81,    115,    163, 
166-7,  I7°,  242 

Zurich   Service,    183-7,    J95>   217, 

221 
Zwingli,  Huldreich,  185,  187,  189,3*. 

217-8,  221 


CAMBRIDGE:  PRINTED  BY  J.   B.  PEACE,  M.A.,  AT  THE  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 

This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


Jg,     0CT151970 

OCT  1  8  1970 


k£$T0  LD-l 

SEP  0  3 


RC 


1988 


Form  L9-Series  4939 


3  1158  00941   1371 


L£ 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


AA    000  637  476    3 


